Originally Posted by LenL
Having an antenna in the NY Market that picks up VHF low band is NOT crucial unless the low band station is important to the viewer. I would think there are very very very few people who would consider getting channel 3 VHF as critical and needing to go out of there way to find a antenna to pick it up.
It is premature at this point to declare a VHF-Lo band antenna as not critical, be it in the NYC market or anywhere else.
The final repacking of the TV bands has not yet occurred. Unfortunately, if any repacking occurs, it will likely result in an additional loss of available RF channels from the UHF band to broadcasters and ultimately OTA viewers. In that distasteful event, some broadcasters - perhaps even network O&Os - may find themselves contemplating a move to VHF-Lo.
Therefore, it would be more cost-effective for OTA viewers presently seeking to install new antennas to prepare for this possibility. It would be somewhat costly and time-consuming to install a VHF-Hi/UHF combo antenna now, only to have to one day dismantle it and reinstall the somewhat more expensive and substantially larger VHF-Lo capable counterpart.
I feel you have to look ahead. Following the DTV transition in 2009, the VHF-Lo band was all but abandoned in the U.S. due to the impulse noise issues and their catastrophic effects on the ATSC signals. Almost immediately afterward, viewers discovered problems receiving stations on the VHF-Hi band, resulting in viewer complaints to station engineers. These newly found vulnerabilities for ATSC signals in the VHF band resulted in station owners seeking displacement to the UHF band, if possible.
No sooner was the DTV transition complete, then came the treasury department's desires to sell off MORE of the UHF band to private mobile carriers to use for expansion of fee-for-service mobile broadband services. After back-and-forth between the NAB, independent broadcasters, mobile carriers, and the FCC, an incentive auction plan that was more fair to broadcasters than originally drafted was signed into law by congress. Suddenly, the TV bands appear they will be shrunk once again, thus creating a renewed interest in bands and channels that once were undesirable, but now seem less so because it is either them or nothing.
At the end of 2009, there was only one VHF-Lo television channel broadcasting in the New York City market and one in the Philadelphia market. As things presently look, at the end of this year, 2014, there will be two, maybe three, VHF-Lo television channels broadcasting in the New York City market and three in the Philadelphia market. By my count, that constitutes a crucial need for a VHF-Lo band antenna, seeing as those five once undesirable and vacant channels are now quickly being occupied.
Originally Posted by LenL
Secondly from what I have read and my own experience with attic mount antennas you lose up to 50% or more of your signal. That may not be a problem if you are in very strong reception areas but it does not work for many people. That is why so many people had/have antennas on there roofs and chimneys before cable.
Oh, if it's a choice between chimney/roof mount or an attic mount installation, I believe you go for the chimney/roof mount, and include an electronic rotor. But many people are disenfranchised because they either cannot access the rooftop or cannot find someone who is knowledgeable and/or willing to perform the installation. This was not a problem back in the pre-cable days you speak of, but it is today.