Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv D. Stussy wrote:
| "Jim Prescott" wrote in message | ... | In article , | D. Stussy wrote: | "Ch 7 thru 69 DTV"? Only 7-51 is authorized after the transition (US) | | Channels 2-51 are all allocated to DTV (except for 37). Channels | 2-6 aren't as popular so many people won't need an antenna that can | receive them; some people can even get by with UHF only (14-51). To | be sure about what you will need go to www.tvfool.com and see what | real channels will be used in your area after transition. | | http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvantennas.html | | Are you certain? I'm in Los Angeles, the #2 market of the U.S., and NONE of | our existing stations in Southern California (including the San Diego market | too) are keeping their allocations on 2-5 (6 is assigned to Mexico, but even | XETV (FOX) is moving to UHF). None of them have even filed construction | permits for that range - but have actually filed permits for other | allocations (UHF). If there were to be a place where something were to | remain in 2-6, I'd think that the top 10 (out of the ~200 TV markets) would | have such occur. See if you can find an available channel for WDTV, then (ironic callsign). -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv D. Stussy wrote:
| Are you certain? I'm in Los Angeles, the #2 market of the U.S., and NONE of | our existing stations in Southern California (including the San Diego market | too) are keeping their allocations on 2-5 (6 is assigned to Mexico, but even | XETV (FOX) is moving to UHF). None of them have even filed construction | permits for that range - but have actually filed permits for other | allocations (UHF). If there were to be a place where something were to | remain in 2-6, I'd think that the top 10 (out of the ~200 TV markets) would | have such occur. Most markets in the USA have to deal with issues from stations in all directions around those cities. Los Angeles doesn't have to deal with stations to the west. -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv G-squared wrote:
| If you don't mind the size of the antenna. The Winegard 7694 is only | 35" wide vs 110" for the 7082. There is no such ting as an antenna | "made exactly for DTV". Antennas cover a range of frequencies thet may | include analog or digital TV. Flatness of response and directionality | are the important issues and are equally important for analog or | digital. However, antennas could be made for "post-transition channel allocations". E.g. the UHF antennas tuned for 14-51, and dual-banders for 7-51. And DTV benefits more from more directional antennas, so even those will end up with sales people labelling them as "DTV". -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance | | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to | | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob wrote:
Bob wrote: w4nng wrote: Bob that antenna appears to be a standard ant w/ what in Feb 09, will be the unnecessary large elements for ch 2 - 6 I plan on not using those anymore at that time. ![]() good for analog, digital TV and radio. oops guess i wuz wrong I see a couple in my potenetial area on DTV channel 6. May be a good thing to have the full antenna after all. ![]() http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-07-138A2.pdf FOUND ANOTHER ON DTV 4 CBS. dude don't be leaving out channels by getting the wrong antenna. could be sporting events from different cities and states you'll be missing out on if you don't get low vhf. |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
w4nng wrote:
Bob that antenna appears to be a standard ant w/ what in Feb 09, will be the unnecessary large elements for ch 2 - 6 "Bob" wrote in message ... " w4nng" wrote in message ... Besides Wineguard's HD769 series, anyone know of other Ch 7 thru 69 DTV hi-gain outdoor antennas? Im using this one for last year or so. http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ab=accessories no complaints. survived some good storms too. That is NOT a safe bet, depending on your local stations. Two of our local stations will be reverting BACK to VHF at that time. They are on UHF now. So before telling someone that they will not need the "longer elements" (VHF), it would behoove them to check and see just what their local conditions will dictate. |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
D. Stussy wrote:
"Jim Prescott" wrote in message ... In article , D. Stussy wrote: "Ch 7 thru 69 DTV"? Only 7-51 is authorized after the transition (US) Channels 2-51 are all allocated to DTV (except for 37). Channels 2-6 aren't as popular so many people won't need an antenna that can receive them; some people can even get by with UHF only (14-51). To be sure about what you will need go to www.tvfool.com and see what real channels will be used in your area after transition. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/dtvantennas.html Are you certain? I'm in Los Angeles, the #2 market of the U.S., and NONE of our existing stations in Southern California (including the San Diego market too) are keeping their allocations on 2-5 (6 is assigned to Mexico, but even XETV (FOX) is moving to UHF). None of them have even filed construction permits for that range - but have actually filed permits for other allocations (UHF). If there were to be a place where something were to remain in 2-6, I'd think that the top 10 (out of the ~200 TV markets) would have such occur. Our local ABC affiliate WOI is reverting from UHF to VHF channel 5 in Feb 2009. It's nuts, but that's what they are doing. Nother station is going from UHF channel 31 to VHF channel 8...so it is NOT unheard of and those who blindly go UHF only in an antenna without knowing what EXACTLY their locals are going to do may find another antenna purchase in their future. |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... (snip) Usuaully its the stations the FCC did a screw-job on. They already had low-band analog and were given either a low-band transition or a depricated UHF transition in 52-69. Congress should have mandated that the FCC find space on high VHF or UHF for all stations that wanted it, with an emphasis on making a market have all on UHF where possible, and where not possible, put many on high VHF so that not a single station is alone there. Phil, Some stations wanted to remain on the low VHF channels for power and propagation reasons. Some broadcasters in the Midwest with large coverage areas get a lower electric bill on those channels even though the threat of interference is higher. Interference is a bigger problem in metropolitan areas than it is in the flat rural corn fields of the U.S. bread basket. David |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 17, 2:10*pm, "David" wrote:
wrote in message ... (snip) Usuaully its the stations the FCC did a screw-job on. They already had low-band analog and were given either a low-band transition or a depricated UHF transition in 52-69. Congress should have mandated that the FCC find space on high VHF or UHF for all stations that wanted it, with an emphasis on making a market have all on UHF where possible, and where not possible, put many on high VHF so that not a single station is alone there. Phil, Some stations wanted to remain on the low VHF channels for power and propagation reasons. Some broadcasters in the Midwest with large coverage areas get a lower electric bill on those channels even though the threat of interference is higher. Interference is a bigger problem in metropolitan areas than it is in the flat rural corn fields of the U.S. bread basket. David I used to work at a low band VHF station that was running 56 kW ERP. The actual transmitter output was 8kW visual and 2.3 kW aural. When I bellyached that KABC 7 in LA would be running only 13kW DT, Alan Figgatt pointed out that DTV doesn't require as much power as analog and 13 kW should be good here. The point is that from a power standpoint, VHF-lo vs VHF-hi wouldn't be all that big a deal. The station gear and A/C would be a much bigger load than the actual transmitter. Compare that to analog UHF where 55 kW visual and 10kW aural is common. THOSE folks will see a big savings but compared to the power load when all the studio lights are on for a production or newcast, even 65 kW is a big part but not the biggest. HVAC can be a bigger load issue - particularly with VHF-hi where 13kW ERP may only need a few kW of acutal transmitter output. I hope I don't hear how the DTV breaks up a lot during lightning strikes. I know that on VHF-lo analog you get LOTS of 'sparklies' during lightning storms. G² |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Rotors & VHF/UHF Yagi's - Sat. Antenna Hardline - more | Swap | |||
Do you always need a ground when you use an outdoor antenna? | Shortwave | |||
Feeding two Yagi's from One Coax. | Antenna |