how-to block ads
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
4 edits | reply to EPS
Re: Rural Areas and Signal Strength
said by EPS  :When the switch occurs, channels whose analog channels on on the VHF-high frequencies (7-13) will for the most part go back to their previous VHF channels for digital- this should improve reception of the digital channels. Note that the VHF-low frequencies are actually prone more to distortion of digital signals than even UHF, so those channels won't be used (with a few exceptions) Any TV station that stays on low VHF is owned by IDIOTS! Those channels are the absolute WORST for HDTV! Ironically, there are only about THIRTY of them, and those 30 stations will be taking up 30 mHz of prime VHF spectrum in the entire USA that could be well used for other services (like many of us who want to extend the FM band from the current 88-108 to 76-108).
This is just another example of how poor a job the FCC does at regulating spectrum! The biggest peoblem is that the FCC has NO ENGINEERS as Commissioners; they are all lawyers. So, decisions that directly involve physics instead are made based upon politics. Unfortunately, even a lawyer can't override the laws of physics-they are what they are.
What's really going to be interesting is all the people who turn their DTV sets on the morning of February 17th to find that they can't receive half their favorite DTV stations. There are two BIG problems; first, every DTV set will have to be re-programmed because many DTV stations will be moving back to their current VHF or UHF analog channels in that overnight-and second, since most current DTV stations broadcast on UHF, many DTV owners have bought amplified indoor TV antennas that only work on UHF. These antennas won't pull in VHF DTV stations well, if at all.
The way around this would have been for the FCC to mandate that all indoor antennas work on both VHF and UHF, but lawyers are too STUPID and IGNORANT of the physics to figure that out. As a result, there is going to be chaos out in TV land come mid Feb. | |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by qworster :The way around this would have been for the FCC to mandate that all indoor antennas work on both VHF and UHF, but lawyers are too STUPID and IGNORANT of the physics to figure that out. As a result, there is going to be chaos out in TV land come mid Feb. I disagree. I think we have enough stupid regulation to start regulating what sort of TV antennas can be sold, imported or manufatured.
It's all a big show to distract people from the *REAL* issues.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 | |
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :Any TV station that stays on low VHF is owned by IDIOTS! Those channels are the absolute WORST for HDTV! Ironically, there are only about THIRTY of them, and those 30 stations will be taking up 30 mHz of prime VHF spectrum in the entire USA that could be well used for other services (like many of us who want to extend the FM band from the current 88-108 to 76-108). So where would you put WPVI? There's no channels available in the area on VHF-Hi or UHF.
As for FM... now there's a waste. FM contains nothing but duplicate stations now, why give it MORE spectrum? | |
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| None? Wow, you guys must have a ton of channels in PA...
But I agree that extending the FM radio spectrum probably wouldn't be too useful- I think we'd be better off breaking up the mega-radio conglomerates and allowing for more local stations (on the other hand, the two aren't mutually exclusive, and locally-owned stations aren't necessarily local or more interesting than mega-corp owned, so argh)
I suppose the same issues that make VHF-Lo bad for ATSC television would preclude the use of that spectrum for other digital purposes. | |
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
4 edits | said by EPS :None? Wow, you guys must have a ton of channels in PA... But I agree that extending the FM radio spectrum probably wouldn't be too useful- I think we'd be better off breaking up the mega-radio conglomerates and allowing for more local stations (on the other hand, the two aren't mutually exclusive, and locally-owned stations aren't necessarily local or more interesting than mega-corp owned, so argh) I suppose the same issues that make VHF-Lo bad for ATSC television would preclude the use of that spectrum for other digital purposes. WPVI could easily go on one of the High VHF or UHF channels that are being given back after the changeover. Reemeber, right now each TV station has TWO channels-that will be reduced to one in Feb., freeing up a ton of channels. Also, remember that unlike NTSC stations (that required a vacant channel between two in the same city-which is why you had to have have channels 7,9,11 and 13 in the same city), with ATSC you can use adjacent channels, which means that in Philadelphia channels 7,9,11, and 13 will eventually be allotted (the spacing between DTV transmitters is about 3/4 that of NTSC, which means that these channels can be used in both NYC and Philadelphia).
Right now we're in a mixed mode, which means that NTSC channels are still being (over) protected.
I disagree about the FM band being extended. This spectrum is badly needed for several reasons. First, there's no distinct place to put digital radio (and remember, analog radio is almost 100 years old!). As a result we have the fatally flawed IBOC HD radio systen that's going nowhere. Second, the AM band is badly overcrowded-and by extending the FM band and moving many of the smaller AM stations over to it, the AM band will be able to once again be used for its primary advantage-powerful 50,000 watt AM stations covering a large swath of area. These stations are still badly needed-as an example look at the valuable service that WWL performed in New Orleans after Katrina (and may be performing again in a few days!).
Finally, the top of the present FM band is right against the aviation band. Powerful FM stations frequently interfere with aircraft communications. By extending the band downwards, it would be simple to eventually put a 1 mHz 'guard band' between the two services.
Don't you agree that having 30 stations occupying 30 Mhz of VHF spectrum in the entire USA is wasteful? I would much rather see channels 2,3 and 4 used for Hobbiest use and/or short to medium range (2-5 miles) wireless Internet. The equipment costs for this band would be dirt cheap and it would produce a whole new industry. | |
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| said by qworster :WPVI could easily go on one of the High VHF or UHF channels that are being given back after the changeover. No, it can't. 7,11, and 13 are full power in New York and would result in interference with a full power in Philly. Channel 8 is in New Jersey, same problem. Channel 9 Allentown. Channel 10, Harrisburg, channel 12 Philadelphia. That's VHF-Hi.
All the UHF stations are also taken or precluded by interference issues; there's no room for a full-power station.
Reemeber, right now each TV station has TWO channels-that will be reduced to one in Feb., freeing up a ton of channels.
Remember we're losing 52-69.
which means that in Philadelphia channels 7,9,11, and 13 will eventually be allotted (the spacing between DTV transmitters is about 3/4 that of NTSC, which means that these channels can be used in both NYC and Philadelphia).
No, they cannot. There's also Baltimore to consider with those. | |
-
|
