Garrett Wollman wrote:
the coverage.) So it's conceivable that, after the transitional
period is through, channel 6 could still be cleared for other
purposes.

There are nine stations whose analog assignment is channel 6 and whose
digital is above 51. Those stations would have to be accomodated
elsewhere to clear channel 6 after transition. (I suppose that might be
possible by using one of the channels freed by other stations in the
same market.)

FWIW those nine stations a

KVIE Sacramento (DTV-53)
WABG Greenwood, Miss. (DTV-54)
KOTV Tulsa (DTV-55)
WIPR San Juan (DTV-55)
KWQC Davenport, Ia. (DTV-56)
WCML Alpena, Mich. (DTV-57)
WKMG Orlando (DTV-58)
WLNS Lansing (DTV-59)
WPVI Philadelphia (DTV-64)

Also FWIW, there are eight stations whose analog assignment is channel 5
and whose digitals are outside core.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

Ben wrote:
I get a nice signal from WSMV-DT on my Channel Master UHF antenna here
in Bowling Green. Of course 56 booms in but 10's pic is much better.
Of course maybe I'm just prejudiced. HA

I've been impressed with our DTV. It does a pretty good job. WKRN's
does a darned good job too. I think something's broken with WTVF-DT,
they don't do anywhere near as well as their analog. (nor anywhere near
as well as WKRN-DT)

Funny thing I'm just like 2 or 3 miles from the local ABC and can't
receive it with the antenna pointing right at the tower but I can get
Channel 2's signal I'm guessing almost 65 or more miles away full
copy. Must be multipath...

Probably, WBKO'd do a lot better if they'd splurge for a bigger tower...
(do it cooperatively with channel 40, they both could use the help...
of course, WSMV is better off with channel 40 having a wimpy signalgrin)

I've seen WBKO-DT here, but only once and during a big tropo opening.
The KETs (which aren't all that powerful) are far more frequently seen.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

(Robert Hovland) wrote in message ...
Dear Newsgroup,

Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM
band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up
their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for
digital TV? As you may or may not know, the FM band is located in between
channels 6 and 7, I believe, and I would be surprised if the FCC would
leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out. They want to
auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the
highest bidder.

This is an absurd notion, based on a lack of understanding.

There is a big chunk of spectrum between channels 6 and 7.

FM broadcast band 88-108MHz

The aero band, 108 to 136MHz or so.

Whatever is between 136 and 144MHz

2 meter amateur band, 144 to 148MHz

"Public service band" 148 to 174MHz
(I've lumped a lot here; paging, fire and police (at least in the
old days, MURS, the VHF marine band, the weather service broadcasts,
business use, etc).

Then comes channel 7.

So if they took the FM band away, there would still be a large chunk
there.

Take note that there is a 6MHz gap, a whole channel, between channels
4 and 5, which actually would be "in the way" more than the FM
band clustered with those other services that will not move.

What you also miss is the amount of spectrum that would be released
if TV vacated from the VHF frequencies (which the other posters
have indicated will not happen). 72MHz would be free, which is
in fact a massive amount of spectrum. TV is the widest bandwidth
signal commonly used, and you can fit an awful lot of stations in the
6MHz bandwidth used by one channel, the moreso now as schemes have
come into play to make better use of the spectrum for two way
communication.

So if the tv channels were released for other uses, a measly 20MHz
for the FM band is nothing.

Even if none of this was true, except for TV there is very little
need for continuous spectrum. So six MHz here, and six MHz there
will result in 12MHz available, and they do not have to be adjacent.
What we have seen is TV getting in the way. They were allocated over
fifty years ago, when radio was still relatively unused. They took
up large chunks of the VHF spectrum, no other service has so much
allocation in the 30 to 300MHz range, and so whatever came later
had to be fitted into whatever segments remained. Once the spectrum
was full, there was no more space to put anything, even though in any
given location there was always space lying empty, since no area has
all tv channels in use. The other services don't need so big chunks,
but TV is using any available space.

In other words, even if the tv channels were vacated for other uses,
there is no reason to lump the FM broadcast band with them.

Michael

In article , (Michael Black) wrote:

Take note that there is a 6MHz gap, a whole channel, between channels
4 and 5, which actually would be "in the way" more than the FM
band clustered with those other services that will not move.

Isn't that a 4 mHz gap, not 6 mHz, between channels 4 and 5 that whatever
takes up?


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/

No such proposal has been made. Digital FM has already been introduced on
the
existing 88-108 Mhz band.


"Robert Hovland" wrote in message
...
Dear Newsgroup,

Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM
band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up
their broadcast band and switch to the new freqency allocations for
digital TV? As you may or may not know, the FM band is located in between
channels 6 and 7, I believe, and I would be surprised if the FCC would
leave the FM band alone when the TV stations get out. They want to
auction these soon-to-be-obsolete TV channel frequencies off to the
highest bidder.

The consequences I think of when I consider the moving of the FM band are
monstrous: what about all of the car radios, portable FM radios and
walkmen, and collector hifi FM tuners that will suddenly become unusable
without maybe some kind of adaptor which may or may not work very well?

To me, it just doesn't seem right that we need to have change for the sake
of "progress", unless the progress is real and necessary. Many times it
seems that these huge changes in the basic infrastructure of our
communications industry are done for the sake of the economic enrichment
of those companies who stand to profit richly from such a change, without
giving much, or any, consideration to the consequences.

When a land developer decides to make major changes to a piece of
undeveloped land, an environmental impact report has to be made before the
developer can go ahead with their plans. Where is the impact report for
this huge planned change in the FM band?

I would like to get comments from others who know more about this proposed
change and when it is to occur.

John Byrns ) writes:
In article , (Michael Black) wrote:

Take note that there is a 6MHz gap, a whole channel, between channels
4 and 5, which actually would be "in the way" more than the FM
band clustered with those other services that will not move.

Isn't that a 4 mHz gap, not 6 mHz, between channels 4 and 5 that whatever
takes up?

You're right, I was looking at the chart wrong.

Michael

AHH FYI, There is only 4 MHz between TV 4 and 5....
72-76 MHz....not 6 MHz! Used for radio links (only is areas where TV 4
and 5 are not allocated/used) and model remote controls.

136-144 is government use....satellites (wx, etc) MARS, CAP, etc...even
Russia's MIR used 143.625 MHz as a comm channel....

Chris
WB5ITT
wb5itt sub for Nospam above
Houston

Michael Black wrote:

Whatever is between 136 and 144MHz

Take note that there is a 6MHz gap, a whole channel, between channels
4 and 5, which actually would be "in the way" more than the FM

"Chris Boone" wrote in message
...
AHH FYI, There is only 4 MHz between TV 4 and 5....
72-76 MHz....not 6 MHz! Used for radio links (only is areas where TV 4
and 5 are not allocated/used) and model remote controls.

Are there still 75 MHz fan markers of airport instrument approaches?
[Showing my age.]

Garrett Wollman had written:
| In article ,
| Robert Hovland wrote:
|
| Does anyone know the latest info about what is going to happen to the FM
| band when the FCC forces all of the VHF television stations to give up
| their broadcast band
|
| The FCC is not so doing, thus the consequences of such an action are
| moot. (Just ask your friends at KOTA-DT channel 2.)

Evidently a few TVs are doing so already. KCSM San Mateo, CA (secondary PBS
for the San Francisco Bay Area) announced in its March program guide
that it will give up its analog allocation on channel 60 and will
broadcast exclusively as DT on channel 43, multicasting at least
two channels. The second channel will be a jazz channel
complementing KCSM-FM. The primary reason, though, seems to be
economic: "We made the decision that our resources needed to go
toward serving more students by creating a whole new telecourse
'stream', rather than paying what amounts to double rent and
electricity to continue our analog broadcast."

KCSM estimated that about 8% of its viewing audience will be
affected. Cable and satellite feeds are to continue.


--
"You're about to see a great sunset if you're in the right place."
-- KCBS morning traffic anchor, 6.58 am, February 9, 2004

WKRN really does have a nice signal. So much better than the analog
with all it's co-channel.

I don't think BKO will ever go for a bigger stick. They never have
been on the cutting edge and they seem to be happy with covering the
surrounding counties. They have 4 antennas on the tower now with 13
and 24 both on it.

I spoke with 40's GM a little while back and he talked of a new tower
and an actual studio but it hasn't happened. I did turn the antenna
around and see the DT signal but it didn't impress me so it was back
to WSMV...I'm just glad the signal on 10 is so good up here.

KET is running 4 channels. Too bad we can't see the PBS HD stuff.
Wonder when 8 will turn on a transmitter?

What's the deal with the Sinclair stations? They looked bad enough
before DT but now they look like pixalated mush.

Ben
W4WSM



I've been impressed with our DTV. It does a pretty good job. WKRN's
does a darned good job too. I think something's broken with WTVF-DT,
they don't do anywhere near as well as their analog. (nor anywhere near
as well as WKRN-DT)

Funny thing I'm just like 2 or 3 miles from the local ABC and can't
receive it with the antenna pointing right at the tower but I can get
Channel 2's signal I'm guessing almost 65 or more miles away full
copy. Must be multipath...

Probably, WBKO'd do a lot better if they'd splurge for a bigger tower...
(do it cooperatively with channel 40, they both could use the help...
of course, WSMV is better off with channel 40 having a wimpy signalgrin)

I've seen WBKO-DT here, but only once and during a big tropo opening.
The KETs (which aren't all that powerful) are far more frequently seen.