Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Allodoxaphobia wrote:

So all this bu$$sh!t about freeing up spectrum, or improving reception,
or yaa-daa yaa-daa yaa-daa is just that - BU$$SH!T!

The transition _does_ free up spectrum. The UHF spectrum between 700
and 800 MHz is being taken back from TV broadcasting, and is being
reallocated for other purposes. Public-safety users get a bunch,
commercial users get a bunch.

As to "improving reception", that's debatable. It's probably a win
for most urban users, and likely a big lose for rural users who are
already in fringe-reception areas (they'll get no picture, rather than
a snowy/ghosty analog picture).

It just turns out to be the case that the FCC is not attempting to
force _all_ stations up into the remaining UHF-band, and reclaim all
of the VHF TV band. Doing so would probably have forced some stations
off of the air or greatly reduced their broadcast coverage area, due
to the fact that some urban areas have so many TV stations that there
wouldn't be good conflict-free UHF channel assignments for all of the
VHF stations. It'd also have cost the existing VHF stations more
money to move, since they'd have been forced to scrap their existing
antenna systems.


I think the freeing of spectrum has been partly mis-understood. Yes,
there appears to be some new efficiency in the upper UHF. However, real
issue is that the spectrum for both analog and digital will not be
supported in parallel. The broadcasts are not compatible, unlike
previous transitions such as adding color. Digital is inevitable. The
"freeing" of spectrum is primarily resulting from the killing of analog,
not from the fact that digital may be more spectrum efficient.

73,
Gene
W4SZ