Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2006 end of NTSC broadcasts?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 11:24:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I remember reading something years ago about 2006 being the last year for
NTSC broadcasts in the US, and that if you wanted to continue to be able to
use your old NTSC past 2006 sets you would have to buy a converter.

Is this still true? Has that year been pushed back?
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 4:07:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Ug....the things people will believe.
2006 is suppose to be the date when there is an ATSC signal for every NTSC
signal. At that point the broadcasters can eliminate there NTSC signal,
although I don't think that will totally happen for another 5 years, at
least. Also if this truly was the case there would be nothing but HD TVs
available for sale, but there are analog sets still all over the place.

Scott

"Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GcETc.11136$mD.8554@attbi_s02...
> I remember reading something years ago about 2006 being the last year for
> NTSC broadcasts in the US, and that if you wanted to continue to be able
to
> use your old NTSC past 2006 sets you would have to buy a converter.
>
> Is this still true? Has that year been pushed back?
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 2:47:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being
turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making
ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also
need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people
who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier.


--
MikeD-C05
Related resources
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 3:04:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Bootstrap Bill wrote:
> I remember reading something years ago about 2006 being the last year for
> NTSC broadcasts in the US, and that if you wanted to continue to be able to
> use your old NTSC past 2006 sets you would have to buy a converter.
>
> Is this still true? Has that year been pushed back?

Scheduled: Yes - 12/31/2006. Congress has NOT changed the deadline date.

Will it happen: Don't know.

There is also another condition: 85% market saturation of DTV capable
households. Whether or not this will count CABLE TV (as the cable headends
will have converted) I don't know (but think that it should). Not meeting the
85% threshold will automatically push back the date on a per-market basis.
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 6:20:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

MikeD-C05 wrote:
> Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
> 1980's. You see that went no where. ...

Try to buy a fifth of whiskey. ;-) (Or a quart, for that matter.) :-(
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 6:20:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jsheldon" <jsheldonNOTTTHIS@his.com> wrote in message
news:4120fae6$1@news101.his.com...
>
>
> MikeD-C05 wrote:
> > Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
> > 1980's. You see that went no where. ...
>
> Try to buy a fifth of whiskey. ;-) (Or a quart, for that matter.) :-(
>

Soda has been in one and two liter bottles for YEARS.

What's the problem with the metric system? It's decimal based, we should
have done it in the 70's!
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 6:20:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote in message
news:2ocddbF8vd68U1@uni-berlin.de...

"Jsheldon" <jsheldonNOTTTHIS@his.com> wrote in message
news:4120fae6$1@news101.his.com...
>
>
> MikeD-C05 wrote:
> > Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
> > 1980's. You see that went no where. ...
>
> Try to buy a fifth of whiskey. ;-) (Or a quart, for that matter.) :-(
>

Soda has been in one and two liter bottles for YEARS.

What's the problem with the metric system? It's decimal based, we should
have done it in the 70's!

----------------------
There's no problem with the metric system. The problem is most Americans
don't want to accept it. We still ask for a fifth of whiskey and don't
complain or even notice when the storekeeper gives us 750 ml.

Bill
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 8:27:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"MikeD-C05" <MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us> wrote in message
news:MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us...
>
> Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
> 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being
> turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making
> ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also
> need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people
> who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier.
>
HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait until
they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one recently.
$800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27" analog set died
today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably have to go without a
TV for a couple years.

I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The
resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor
industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as
an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of
new monitors.
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 10:01:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

My point is that we are not using the metric system officially for
measurements or miles on the road etc. The government said they were
going to make the U. S. use the metric system by the 1980's and we
haven't ever switched to it for our official system. The same will
hold true for the analog channels going to all digital by 2006. The
government doesn't want to hear people bitchin all over the country
when they switch off the analog channels. This is why I say they won't
be switching off the analog channels till the next decade . By then the
majority of tvs in use will be digital and the older tvs will be going
out one by one. Then it will be easy to switch with only a few
converter boxes needed for a few old timers who still have analog tvs.


--
MikeD-C05
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 11:01:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"MikeD-C05" <MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us> wrote in message
news:MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us...
>
> Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
> 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being
> turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making
> ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also
> need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people
> who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier.


Why is no one mentioning part 2 of the congressional mandate?

That 85% of the TV's in use be capable of receiving the new digital
broadcasts before the analog licenses would be cancelled.

THIS is the limiting factor, not the date.

The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and
satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006
is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while.
August 16, 2004 11:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

hunkahunkaburninluv Wrote:
>
> I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The
> resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor
> industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA
> monitor as
> an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost
> of of
> new monitors.

There are plenty of ATSC tuner boxes with VGA outputs. But, they are
still expensive, thus why I don't have one.


--
Pepper
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 12:44:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:


> The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and
> satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006
> is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while.

Randy,

Precisely! And as you apparently know, this change is under
consideration. What I have seen suggested is that with this change in
counting sets able to view a digital signal by either cable or sat it
still likely would move the date of compliance out about two years.

Jerry
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 3:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote:
> "MikeD-C05" <MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us> wrote in message
> news:MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us...
> >
> > Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
> > 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being
> > turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making
> > ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also
> > need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people
> > who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition easier.
> >
> HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait until
> they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one
> recently. $800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27"
> analog set died today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably
> have to go without a TV for a couple years.
>
> I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The
> resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor
> industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor
> as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost
> of of new monitors.

The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD.
Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 3:43:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<cjdaytonjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:20040816194345.399$vP@newsreader.com...
> "hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote:
> > "MikeD-C05" <MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us> wrote in message
> > news:MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us...
> > >
> > > Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
> > > 1980's. You see that went no where. I don't see the analog being
> > > turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop
making
> > > ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also
> > > need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people
> > > who still have analog tvs. This would help make the transition
easier.
> > >
> > HDTV's are still too expensive to totally replace analog TV's. Wait
until
> > they can sell a 30" HDTV for less than $300. I was looking at one
> > recently. $800 is a bit more than I can afford right now. If my 27"
> > analog set died today and I couldn't buy a new analog set, I'd probably
> > have to go without a TV for a couple years.
> >
> > I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The
> > resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor
> > industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor
> > as an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the
cost
> > of of new monitors.
>
> The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD.
> Chip

How much would this add to the cost of a TV? I'd say do it if you can for
less than $50. If not, wait.
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 5:39:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:47:54 -0400, MikeD-C05
<MikeD-C05.1b369w@nobody.satelliteguys.us> wrote:

>Well congress mandated we would all be on the metric system by the
>1980's. You see that went no where.

That's what I'm screamin.

>I don't see the analog being
>turned off until somewhere in the next decade. They should stop making
>ALL analog tvs NOW and then the transition would go faster. They also
>need cheap digital to analog converter boxes to help out the people
>who still have analog tvs.

I'm thinking the advertisers will have a profound effect on this
switchover from analog to digital. My prediction is the providers
will be fighting for new customers by offering boxes for free to those
willing to sign term contracts, much like they do now with their HD
boxes. The providers have little choice... it is they who will bear
the cost of the converter boxes in the beginning, then we who will pay
for it in our monthly fees in the end. Those of us with analog TV's
will just have to switch to new providers to get the converter boxes
for "free - for x-amount of months term committment" and those of us
with fully-integrated tv's with the card slot will call the remaining
shots..... all just my own personal opinion.
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 7:12:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote (in part):

>I recently bought a brand new 19" SVGA monitor for less than $200. The
>resolution is higher than HDTV. How much would it cost for the monitor
>industry to add the necessary inputs so that I could use an SVGA monitor as
>an HDTV monitor? I'm guessing less than $10 would be added to the cost of of
>new monitors.

Better yet, more HD tuners should have VGA connectors. Mine does, and
it works fine with my rather ancient Compaq V500 monitor. Not that I
use it that way much, but it's nice to know I could.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 10:33:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<cjdaytonjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:20040816194345.399$vP@newsreader.com...
> "hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote:
>
> The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD.

The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA
digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to display
the resulting picture in HD.
August 17, 2004 10:33:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If I understand this correctly, when a local broadcast station sends its
signal out over the air in digital (ATSC) format, then by definition 85% of
the viewing area can receive the digital signal. Therefore, the analog
(ATSC) signal can (and will) be discontinued. The FCC is not waiting until
85% of the viewers convert to digital boxes or HD TVs, they are waiting till
the stations convert to digital broadcasting. You do not have to have an HD
TV, rather any TV with a digital converter box will work.

Even with no HD TV, you will enjoy a much clearer picture with the digital
signal rather than analog.

Do I have this wrong?

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EbsUc.8170$54.121075@typhoon.sonic.net...
> <cjdaytonjr@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:20040816194345.399$vP@newsreader.com...
>> "hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote:
>>
>> The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD.
>
> The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA
> digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to
> display
> the resulting picture in HD.
>
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2004 10:33:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<cjdaytonjr@cox.net> wrote in message
news:20040816194345.399$vP@newsreader.com...
> "hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote:
>
> The televisions have to receive digital signals, not necessarily HD.

The tuners do have to be able to receive HD signals (since nearly all OTA
digital signals ARE HD), though the set doesn't necessarily need to display
the resulting picture in HD.
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 6:02:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Glenn" <jedi128hatesspam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:I8uUc.9931$yh.3927@fed1read05...
> If I understand this correctly, when a local broadcast station sends its
> signal out over the air in digital (ATSC) format, then by definition 85%
of
> the viewing area can receive the digital signal. Therefore, the analog
> (ATSC) signal can (and will) be discontinued. The FCC is not waiting
until
> 85% of the viewers convert to digital boxes or HD TVs, they are waiting
till
> the stations convert to digital broadcasting. You do not have to have an
HD
> TV, rather any TV with a digital converter box will work.
>
> Even with no HD TV, you will enjoy a much clearer picture with the digital
> signal rather than analog.
>
> Do I have this wrong?
The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and
some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the
edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas
that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal
with an outside antenna.

What is the FCC's position on the fact that the broadcast range
of so many stations will be drastically reduced? HD won't be
clearer if you can't receive it but you can receive the analog
signal.
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 6:02:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <1NyUc.5602$3O3.2107@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
noemail@mindspring.com says...
> "Glenn" <jedi128hatesspam@cox.net> wrote in message
> The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
> range compared to analog.

In fact, for a given transmitter power + antenna gain, the range of
DTV is substantially greater than that of analog. For this reason,
the FCC is generally limiting DTV to about 15% of the ERP (effective
radiated power) of an analog station operating on the same frequency.

As a previous responder indicated, what you're seeing is due to the
fact that many broadcasters are only running tiny amounts of power on
the digital signals.

/Chris, AA6SQ
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 3:45:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GcETc.11136$mD.8554@attbi_s02...
>I remember reading something years ago about 2006 being the last year for
> NTSC broadcasts in the US, and that if you wanted to continue to be able
> to
> use your old NTSC past 2006 sets you would have to buy a converter.
>
> Is this still true? Has that year been pushed back?
>
>
>

FCC (as of last week) is making all OTA digital channels go full power by
July 1, 2005. They are doing this because of the large number of stations
broadcasting digital with low power or very low power. So it's still
doable, but not likely. To many politicos would suffer.

Cable systems are not tied to a a particular date AFAIK but will eventually
go all digital to get more bandwidth. Most (maybe all) non-OTA cable
product is delivered to the cable or satellite company via digital methods,
with some converted to analog for your local viewing.

The FCC, IMOHO, has botched the transition by trying to make everyone happy
and not really keeping the public informed. I can buy a cable ready analog
TV today, but in a few years when your cable company goes digital, you will
still need a STB. It is theoretically possible to build a STB that would
transmit a different analog channel for each cable channel that you want,
but its probably not economically feasible at this time.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 2:44:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Jsheldon wrote:
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
> > The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and
> > satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006
> > is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while.
>
> Randy,
>
> Precisely! And as you apparently know, this change is under consideration.
> What I have seen suggested is that with this change in counting sets able to
> view a digital signal by either cable or sat it still likely would move the
> date of compliance out about two years.

Why? I happen to live in an area where the practically the only people that
don't have cable are those who cancelled when they went to satellite dishes.
Market penetration in my area of cable + satellite by itself is in the 90%+
range, so if these counted toward DTV's 85% threshold, my zip-code should have
analog signals turned off TODAY! That's not even counting digital TV's sold to
my area.... Of course, my zip code isn't the only one in the TV's market area
(#2 market - Los Angeles), but areas like mine will pull the average toward the
threshold. It's the "inner city" areas that will make or break the threshold.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 3:15:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Bruce Tomlin wrote:
> In article <1NyUc.5602$3O3.2107@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
> > range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and
> > some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the
> > edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas
> > that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal
> > with an outside antenna.
>
> That would probably have something to do with most stations (everywhere
> in the US) not yet broadcasting at full power. Many are apparently
> broadcasting on temporary licenses allowing them to operate at 5%-25% of
> their maximum licensed power. This is as an exemption to a full power
> license that they already have.

And even so, if you're having problems, it's probably your setup. I'm in Los
Angeles and I am getting six of the San Diego market stations, including their
FOX-6 (DTV-23) which is actually XETV, transmitting 140+ miles away from Mt.
San Miguel in Mexico. The other SD stations' transmitters are closer. I'm
using the same antennas (one for SD, one for LA) that I used for analog - and
the LA-pointed one is the same antenna that I once picked up WCCV (analog 54 -
Arecibo, PR) on when it tropo'ed in from 3,000 miles away.

> The Fox station here in Austin is broadcasting at 800 watts. That's 800
> watts as in eight light bulbs, compared to full ATSC UHF transmitter
> power of up to one MILLION watts. (Analog NTSC apparently goes to 5
> million watts.) I'm less than 15 miles away, and I can barely get the
> tiniest blip out of it with an outside antenna aimed in exactly the
> right direction.

At 15 miles and not counting atmospheric absorption (as I don't know the
frequency), you should get 0.21 microvolts of field strength for 800W ERP.
That's right at the threshold of what you should be able to receive, and with
the gain in any beam (or yagi) TV antenna, that should be enough to overcome
atmospheric and feedline losses. You may be able to do better than "barely."

> I don't have any problem with CBS and ABC here broadcasting at 35.4KW ...
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 3:15:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You seem to have a lot of facts, but I don't believe the 0.21 microvolt
number. Are you sure it isn't millivolts?

--
"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0408170732240.74@kd6lvw.ampr.org...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Bruce Tomlin wrote:
> > In article <1NyUc.5602$3O3.2107@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
SNIP
> At 15 miles and not counting atmospheric absorption (as I don't know the
> frequency), you should get 0.21 microvolts of field strength for 800W ERP.
SNIP.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 3:15:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Field strength in millivolts would present some interesting issues. I
haven't checked the numbers but microvolts would be the ballpark.

FYI, top posting has been unpopular on this group. While I prefer it I try
to accommodate the wishes of the majority rather than starting another
debate.

Leonard

"Joel Graffman" <JRGraff@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:JalWc.15892$%n4.15563@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> You seem to have a lot of facts, but I don't believe the 0.21 microvolt
> number. Are you sure it isn't millivolts?
>
> --
> "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
> news:p ine.LNX.4.60.0408170732240.74@kd6lvw.ampr.org...
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Bruce Tomlin wrote:
> > > In article <1NyUc.5602$3O3.2107@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > "Mark Jones" <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
> SNIP
> > At 15 miles and not counting atmospheric absorption (as I don't know the
> > frequency), you should get 0.21 microvolts of field strength for 800W
ERP.
> SNIP.
>
>
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 3:21:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Vince Stone wrote:
> ... The FCC, IMOHO, has botched the transition by trying to make everyone
> happy and not really keeping the public informed. I can buy a cable ready
> analog TV today, ...

That's a real understatement.

1) I have found that there are people who still didn't know (until I told
them) of the plans to turn off analog signals.

2) The fact that there are still so many regular (analog only) TV's on the
market today is a real problem.
Anonymous
August 30, 2004 12:37:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Joel Graffman wrote:
> You seem to have a lot of facts, but I don't believe the 0.21 microvolt
> number. Are you sure it isn't millivolts?

Yes. Measurement in microvolts is correct.

You will find this relationship:

A 1 watt (ERP) transmitter at 1 km has a field strength of 0.16 microvolts.

Why: FS (in volts) = power / (2 * pi * distance-in-meters ^ 2) in a vacuum.

That clearly does not account for atmospheric absorption, which would make the
signal weaker anyway (maybe even nanovolts).
!