Originally Posted by wish
True, and I might be over exaggerating, but I'd bet the number not using a rooftop is more than you think (i.e. lower income households).
I can receive WCPO digital just fine here from 32 miles with indoor rabbit ears. The analog 9 signal with that setup is not something I'd call acceptable, except perhaps for occasional viewing of say the news on a small TV.
In addition, how many of those households will effectively be reduced to one TV for watching the digital VHF stations? Many a bedroom TV is going to be isolated to UHF only viewing.
VHF (VHF/UHF) antennas can(and should) be hooked to "bedroom TV's" as well.
1. VHF analog doesn't seem to be as problematic as VHF digital
Doesn't seem that way to me, one possible exception being the "impulse noise" issue(lightning is natural source of it, electric motors for example are one manmade source) for VHF -- which it seems can be quite problematical at times even on VHF-HI.
Otherwise, Seems about the same, just as it was designed to be ....
2. Most accept a weak analog signal as long as they can still see some of the picture. Pixilation or a complete loss of signal is going to be seen as a step back (you alluded to this in another part of your post).
Noone ever said that a very snowy or ghosty or interference laden analog signal would be replaced by perfect digital reception. Users who are "ok" with a crappy analog signal who can't receive the digital station will have to do without, adjust/move antenna away from sources of interference, or get a better antenna system.
There will be some who have poor analog reception and will get perfect digital reception(including on VHF), or may get some occasional dropouts but still "percieve" digital as better than poor analog reception and there will be some "living with" very poor analog reception which will need to get a better antenna setup for digital.
There are also folks, such as in terrain obstructed locations whom get better VHF reception than UHF, the same is true for digital as it is for analog ....
I think The issue you are addressing is fundamentally one of analog vs. digital, not "VHF vs UHF".
With analog, you can "see" reception impariments and what is causing them on screen, and can often intuitively adjust antenna for best results/best picture. But with digital, without the use of expensive test equipment, one often does not know what is going on. In that regard, certianly I agree analog is "better" than digital.