Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike99 /forum/post/17948158
These wireless groups want people to be able to watch TV on their phones, yet I won 't be able to watch TV on my TV. What's with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 /forum/post/17948726
Well TV on your TV is free. They can't money that way. They don't care if you can't watch free OTA TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike99 /forum/post/17948158
These wireless groups want people to be able to watch TV on their phones, yet I won 't be able to watch TV on my TV. What's with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes /forum/post/17961648
I'm going to say it again, but in a different way -- if the CTIA is successful in acquiring most of what is currently OTA broadcasting spectrum so they can SELL that air space to people and (I assume) force everyone who has a standard ATSC TV to buy some sort of NEW converter (and a contract) to watch the equivalent of what is currently OTA, well, I don't think it matters HOW MUCH CLOUT they have in Congress or with the FCC... Can anyone say "Boston Tea Party," or "Whisky Rebellion?"
There are easily enough OTA-only viewers in America to cause so much outrage over such a move it could be more than just political unrest, and if the majority in Congress isn't smart enough to see that, they're a a lot less intelligent than I thought even the stupid ones had to be to get elected. (That quote from Olympia Snowe simply blew me away with how how little she seems to realize the implications!)
Jeff
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirayge /forum/post/17962568
Since antennas can broadcast as well as receive, how many irate people with obsolete OTA setups and white noise generators would it take to make a wasteland of the spectrum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by systems2000 /forum/post/17966526
The Constitution gives only three branches any power to do anything (and that is severely restricted). If the people would understand that. all these little kingdoms are truely powerless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes /forum/post/17976758
BUT I think that's still looming over everyone's head from here on out, and the chances are unless someone gets Congress to pass a strong law against it, it will come to pass, eventually.
Jeff
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker /forum/post/17978187
What needs to be found, or written if it isn't there, is a mandate from congress to assign TV channels. There are some special cases (such as the "every state must have a commercial VHF channel") but something clear that says the FCC "shall" assign channels to licensees for TV use would be an easy fix and protection against the next spectrum grab. ("Shall" means must.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TV Fringe Viewer /forum/post/17990109
The NAB commercial part of this is airing on serveral local channels in my area!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TV Fringe Viewer /forum/post/17993776
The reason I said VHF needs more power because in the Ozarks are High VHF's don't work sometimes!!! These have a power level anywhere from 4.05 kW, 26 kW, 28.2 kW, and 55 kW!!!! On channels 13, 10, 8, and 12!!!!
Certain Vehicles going up and down the street makes it pixilate and lose sound until it passes!!!!
Lightning, FM Interference, flipping on and off a light switch, pulling a ceiling fan chain, and electrical devices with motors all does the same thing!!!!
Read the Springfield-Joplin, MO HDTV Forum and you will see all are complaints about VHF!!!!
We all have the right antenna's and it still don't work!!!!
Minimum of 100 kW and Maximum of 316 kW!!! Would be nice!!! But most likely not going to happen!
What would solve all these problems, move all VHF TV Band 2-13 to unused frequencies in the UHF TV Band 14-51!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer /forum/post/17994166
There is no guaranty that any amount of power will prevent that pixilation resulting from vehicles, lighting, etc. with digital VHF. The current maximum of 160 kW for high VHF is more than enough anywhere in the country and as I already stated low VHF should only be used for digital television as an absolutely last resort. A 100 kW minimum might work in the Ozarks but it would cause way too much interference here in Zone 1 (current VHF high maximum is usually 30kW without special permission for more) and places like Florida and the Gulf Coast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes /forum/post/18004202
Then why not sell ALL of VHF (except 88-108 Mhz) to the telecommunications industry with a caveat that the REMAINING UHF is LOCKED IN for broadcast DTV in perpetuity for as long as a need for broadcast TV remains (I agree a day will likely come when there's no longer a need for our current broadcasting technology, but I don't see it anywhere in the forseeable future)?
If the Telecoms NEED more Mhz so badly, let them buy THAT space, since seemingly EVERYONE is in agreement it's not ANY GOOD for broadcasting (or at least for receiving).
Jeff
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 /forum/post/18005668
How would you use VHF for mobile? Do you see how big of antenna you need for VHF especially Low-VHF? How would that work in a cell phone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAHayes /forum/post/18011324
All I'm saying is if the DTV transition made VHF essentially USELESS for TV transmission/reception, and the wireless carriers are all hellbent on getting more spectrum, then let them have THAT. And let THEM work out the antenna issues.
I think they're all the greediest bunch of crooks in the telecommunications industry, so they'd figure something out.
Jeff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer /forum/post/18011603
Then they should get the VHF channels...