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) |

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) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv wrote:

| PS Verizon messed up my usenet access when they dropped alt.* groups.
| Thanks a lot, Verizon and the NY AG.

I trust that you are calling them every single day to tell them that it is
absolute stupidity to remove newgroups that have no child porn as part of a
compaign they claim to be against child porn.

And then you switch to using the NUMBER ONE source of Usenet spam as your
alternative? Just pray that the spammers don't start doing "followup spam"
via Google groups to try to get past the blocking that allows followups to
bypass filters (e.g. I'll figure out how to block it all if spammers do that
before Google cleans house, and will be quite willing to tell everyone else
how to do it).

You could, instead, switch to one of the paid Usenet providers, and just
treat it as Verizon raised your billing price again.

--
|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) |

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) |

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. other wise works
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.

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.

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.

wrote:
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".


Which will do no good here at all. Post transition our local ABC
affiliate is going to VHF channel 5.

There is no substitute for the long tried and tested combo vhf/uhf
antenna in our area.

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