In article ,
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

Channels 2-6 are still allocated to TV, even after 2/09. Only channels
52-69 go away.

Granted, not many major stations are sticking with low-vhf but there
are a few. One of the more notable is WNAZ, the NBC affiliate in
Phoenix which intends to keep using channel 2.

You can check to see what type of antenna you'll need at
www.tvfool.com
You can select either the current stations, or post cutover. For
antenna purposes you want to look at "real channel". Some lucky
markets will be pure UHF after cutover, greatly simplifying their
antenna needs.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Jim Prescott wrote:
| In article ,
| 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
|
| Channels 2-6 are still allocated to TV, even after 2/09. Only channels
| 52-69 go away.
|
| Granted, not many major stations are sticking with low-vhf but there
| are a few. One of the more notable is WNAZ, the NBC affiliate in
| Phoenix which intends to keep using channel 2.

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.

--
|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) |

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

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