http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21063352 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:02:58 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:02:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21063352 Mr Matt : :huh: Unfortunately most people do not realize the results of a station changing the frequency of their signal from the VHF Band to the UHF Band. In the case I described above, where a viewer cannot receive any stations broadcasting on UHF Channels, if a station changes their frequency from an VHF Frequency to a UHF Frequency, those viewers that were formerly able to receive a viewable signal from that station before the change, will no longer be able to receive a viewable signal from that station after the change. Some stations are already simulcasting on their old NTSC Channel and new UHF DTV Channel. Some viewers find that they cannot receive a viewable signal on the stations new UHF Frequency Assignment. What do you do if you formerly were able to receive the a station on their old VHF NTSC Channel but not on their new UHF ATSC Channel?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21063352 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:12:57 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21062560 BF69 : All worrying for nothing. Of course signals are bad now because stations are having to provide BOTH analog and digital signals. And since most people using OTA are still doingit via analog stations are using the best assignment for that signal. Once they no longer have to carry analog signals station will move the digital assignment that provides the best signal. If people would actually wait until Feb 17 2009 before whinning they see there won't be anything to whine about in 99% of the cases.

In 5 1/2 months show me someone that used to get in a signal with analog OTA and no longer does with digital OTA then they'll be something worth getting panties in a wad over. Until then it's all speculation. And wishful thinking by the haters.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21062560 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:09:00 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21061819 snipper_cr : I'm not sure I understand the charge in your post. Are you saying that the government is focusing too much on the digital TV element and less on expanding broadcast TV (digital OR analog) footprint?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21061819 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:57:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21061772 Mr Matt : :mad: FCC stands for Federal Confusion Commission. The FCC learned that there would be a problem for distant viewers receiving a clear signal as soon as UHF transmitters were put in service in the early 1950's. Rural viewers were simply left out. A viewer needs a direct line of sight path from the desired UHF Station to their Antenna. At one point UHF was described as the frequency band for local service in small towns. I learned in the mid 60's that UHF reception of channel WNYC and other UHF Channels broadcasting from the Empire State Building, would not be possible at my Families Summer Home about 50 Miles from New York City. Unfortunately Cable was not available. The only channels that were always viewable via Antenna were VHF 2 through 13. Unfortunately Channels 2 through 6 were particularly problematical because of interference from other distant stations operating on the same frequency. The people who purchased that house will be disappointed if they are not subscribing to DBS when the transition to DTV is made. The propagation characteristics of VHF Low, VHF High and UHF Frequencies are so different that in many areas reception of certain bands are impossible. Stations that moved their signal from the VHF Band to the UHF Band did their viewers a disservice. As they say in the sewage treatment business the Feces will hit the Impeller as soon as the transition to digital broadcasting takes place as many viewers are shut out. The question is what can or will be done to help out the rural viewers, or does the FCC even care about rural viewers?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21061772 Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:51:18 EDT