Besides Wineguard's HD769 series, anyone know of other Ch 7 thru 69 DTV
hi-gain outdoor antennas?

Thanks

Bob

" 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.

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.

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.



"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.

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

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.

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

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.