Philadelphia, PA - OTA - Page 137 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 16Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #4081 of 4085 Unread Yesterday, 04:15 PM
Member
 
trailblazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jackson, NJ
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilbur_the_goose View Post
I hate VHF. I can get 6 in Chester Springs, but it took them to do a major increase in power to make it happen.

WHYY is impossible, but I get NJN 23 clear as a bell, although it's much further away and I'm "behind" Bacton Hill (a 550' hill)
Used to get channel 6 when they where on UHF. After the transition and they went to VHF, never seen ABC channel 6 again. I am in central NJ (45 miles out). I have the same issue with NY VHF channels. Reception via UHF was great, so why did the government allow stations to go back to VHF which is much harder to receive.
trailblazer is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4082 of 4085 Unread Yesterday, 05:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 7,934
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1597 Post(s)
Liked: 1209
Because the government always does what's best for the general public.

Michael

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
Downloadable FREE demo discs: Demonstration Blu-Ray Discs (Independently Authored)
Welcome to AVS - Get out while you still can!
For most of the time, the here and now is neither now nor here. Graham Swift
LastButNotLeast is offline  
post #4083 of 4085 Unread Yesterday, 06:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by trailblazer View Post
so why did the government allow stations to go back to VHF which is much harder to receive.
because some folks at the FCC failed proper mathematics class. Here is a editorial from Mike Kohl at global-cm.net back in 2009

We have been attempting to cover the fallout from the June 12th shutoff of full power analog television signals across the United States. It turns out that most of the public WAS ready for the transition, and that television stations were equally ready for that plug to be pulled, forcing everyone into permanent digital mode. But it turns out that flawed engineering data at the FCC has caused a major fiasco with stations that are now using VHF channels 2 to 13 for digital. Most visible examples include channel 13 in Baltimore, which was doing fine with its analog VHF channel, and equally well if not even better with their temporary UHF digital frequency. Once they shut off analog on VHF, turned off the temporary UHF digital signal, and then turned on VHF digital, a nasty surprise was found. As an outsider, all I can see is that highly visible engineering people must have been sleeping through much of their elementary school mathematics classes, and missed the parts on multiplication and division. Let's see if the rest of you can pass this test: If a UHF TV station was allowed to transmit 5 million watts video power in analog, and then given permission to use 1 million watts for digital, that would mean that the digital signal is using 20% of the power of previous analog signal. Suppose that a VHF station on channel 13 was previously transmitting at the maximum 316 Kw allowed for analog (just as UHF channels were allowed 5000 Kw on analog), would it not make a little bit of sense that the digital allotment should be somewhere near 20% of the previous analog power output? That number would be just over 60 Kw in most circumstances. Why were VHF channels given power outputs typically between 10 and 30 Kw? Did nobody realize that you would get extremely reduced coverage at a fraction of the power? And there was no real-world testing situation in many cases to see if digital VHF performance was adequate at proposed power levels?? Somewhere in the explanation should include the word "idiot", in my humble opinion. At least the FCC is now acting at previously unheard of speed to respond to broadcasters that are struggling with the power levels authorized, and giving them permission to crank up the power. It's still sort of an experimental process, with those complaining the loudest getting the attention (and permission) to increase power levels. Let's hope that things work out for the best sooner than later. Next is the plan to allow fill-in translators and other rebroadcasters to go on the air in areas that digital is now not working---after being satisfactory for analog signals for many years. Another debacle that will take a long time to straighten our!

The issue with VHF Low is interference. Also Channel 6 chose VHF 6 in the Digital RF station rounds. They were on 64 pre-2009 which was taken away in 2009
unclehonkey is online now  
 
post #4084 of 4085 Unread Today, 02:24 PM
Member
 
trailblazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Jackson, NJ
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclehonkey View Post
because some folks at the FCC failed proper mathematics class. Here is a editorial from Mike Kohl at global-cm.net back in 2009

We have been attempting to cover the fallout from the June 12th shutoff of full power analog television signals across the United States. It turns out that most of the public WAS ready for the transition, and that television stations were equally ready for that plug to be pulled, forcing everyone into permanent digital mode. But it turns out that flawed engineering data at the FCC has caused a major fiasco with stations that are now using VHF channels 2 to 13 for digital. Most visible examples include channel 13 in Baltimore, which was doing fine with its analog VHF channel, and equally well if not even better with their temporary UHF digital frequency. Once they shut off analog on VHF, turned off the temporary UHF digital signal, and then turned on VHF digital, a nasty surprise was found. As an outsider, all I can see is that highly visible engineering people must have been sleeping through much of their elementary school mathematics classes, and missed the parts on multiplication and division. Let's see if the rest of you can pass this test: If a UHF TV station was allowed to transmit 5 million watts video power in analog, and then given permission to use 1 million watts for digital, that would mean that the digital signal is using 20% of the power of previous analog signal. Suppose that a VHF station on channel 13 was previously transmitting at the maximum 316 Kw allowed for analog (just as UHF channels were allowed 5000 Kw on analog), would it not make a little bit of sense that the digital allotment should be somewhere near 20% of the previous analog power output? That number would be just over 60 Kw in most circumstances. Why were VHF channels given power outputs typically between 10 and 30 Kw? Did nobody realize that you would get extremely reduced coverage at a fraction of the power? And there was no real-world testing situation in many cases to see if digital VHF performance was adequate at proposed power levels?? Somewhere in the explanation should include the word "idiot", in my humble opinion. At least the FCC is now acting at previously unheard of speed to respond to broadcasters that are struggling with the power levels authorized, and giving them permission to crank up the power. It's still sort of an experimental process, with those complaining the loudest getting the attention (and permission) to increase power levels. Let's hope that things work out for the best sooner than later. Next is the plan to allow fill-in translators and other rebroadcasters to go on the air in areas that digital is now not working---after being satisfactory for analog signals for many years. Another debacle that will take a long time to straighten our!

The issue with VHF Low is interference. Also Channel 6 chose VHF 6 in the Digital RF station rounds. They were on 64 pre-2009 which was taken away in 2009
Thanks. Interesting write up. Sounds more like the government did not have any common sense or just couldn't leave well enough alone!
trailblazer is online now  
post #4085 of 4085 Unread Today, 03:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked: 65
One thing I forgot to note...Mike is/was a satellite dealer years ago and use to do installs of large commercial satellite dishes in Alaska and also did some work on the Mt Wilson (LA) Antenna farm years ago. So he knows his stuff. Here is a couple articles
http://www.global-cm.net/news&views200606.html
http://www.global-cm.net/news&views20061226.html
http://global-cm.net/news&views20080610.html


Anywho the thing with VHF Low is most of the stations that use it are smaller markets that could save money by not moving to a different station. Also in those areas most folks already had outdoor antennas so it wasnt that much of an issue. As example a few of these network (Big 4) stations right now on VHF Low
-Bangor Maine (which right now is very unique as you only need a VHF antenna to get all the stations. All 4 commercial and PBS are on VHF. A couple have UHF translators but they are on 2 (NBC), 13 (CBS), 7 (ABC/FOX) and 9 (PBS)
-North Platte, Nebraska (they actually have 2..NBC on 2 and ABC on 6)
-Eureka, CA
-Calumet, MI (UP of Michigan)
-Butte, Montana (2 of them..CBS on 5 and NBC on 6)
-Glendive, MT (KXGN flash cut on 6/17/09...they never had a "companion" channel
-Lead, SD (satellite of Rapid City station)
-Memphis, TN
-Bristol, VA (Tri Cities)
-Weston, WV
-Albany, NY

-Quad CIties and Des Moines, IA also have VHF Low stations but have UHF translators also

So as you can see outside of Philly I would say Albany being the next biggest market that has a VHF Low network affiliate. What is nuts is there are some stations who decided to cash in their chips and move from UHF or VHF High to VHF Low in exchange for a payout including the PBS stations in Pittsburgh (WQED), Boston (WGBH) Los Angeles and Rhode Island. So that outta be interesting when folks with antennas there lose those stations.

VHf High isnt so bad as long as you have the right antenna.
unclehonkey is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off