The VHF's Return after UHF (was Re: CH 40 Analog was shut downSun nite)

[Dan.Strassberg]

I'm not so sure that, with the technology currently being shipped, the
Vs have better range than the Us, especially with the power allowed,
which, as with analog, is highest for Us, significantly lower for
high-band Vs, and lowest of all for low-band Vs. I have a Panasonic
DTV receiver (date of manufacture April 2008, purchased late June
2008). The set is hooked to an indoor antenna (rabbit ears for VHF
plus a UHF loop in a single unit). When I use the up and down arrows
to change channels, I have the tuner set to stop only on digital
signals, but I can still select analog channels by keying in the
channel numbers. I live in Arlington Heights near the Lexington line,
near the top of Belmont Hill. The Park Circle water tower (the highest
or nearly the highest point in Arlington is ~0.5 miles to my
northeast. Although it is not line of sight from my house to the three
tall towers in Newton/Needham, there are no significant hills between
me and them. The distance is less than 10 airline miles.

The analog signals I can receive on Channels 2, 4, and 5 are simply
dreadful--very snowy. Channel 7 analog is better but not as good as I
would have expected. The analog signals on 25, 38, 44, 56, and 68 are
quite good--better than on older analog-only (NTSC) receivers. I don't
understand the poor analog reception on the low-band Vs, but since
their DTV will be on UHF, I haven't worried about it. I am a bit
concerned about the reception on Channel 7 after its DTV signal moves
onto Channel 7. At present, I don't have unusual problems with 7's
DTV, which is temporarily on a UHF channel. The one local DTV channel
that is more of a problem than the others is 38. Doesn't CBS own 38?
If so, I wish there were room for it on the Channel 4 tower because
the digital signals from 2, 4, 5, and 44, which all use that tower,
have been pretty trouble free. OTOH, 25, 38, 56, 62, and 68 all
transmit DTV on UHF from the candelabra tower and of those, only 38 is
troublesome for me. Go figure!

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Laurence" <marklaurence@mac.com>
To: "Sid Schweiger" <sid@wrko.com>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: The VHF's Return after UHF (was Re: CH 40 Analog was shut
downSun nite)


> On Dec 4, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Sid Schweiger wrote:
>
>>>> According to the FCC, here's where everything settles down after
>>>> 2/17/09:
>>
>> ANALOG -> DIGITAL
>> MA (Boston and Worcester metro only):
>> 7 -> 7
>> 2 -> 19
>> 5 -> 20
>> 4 -> 30...
>> 46 -> 10...
>>
>> RI:
>> 64 -> 12
>> 12 -> 13...
>> 10 -> 51
>
> Is it still true that VHF will have significantly better coverage
> than UHF signals?  If so, I don't understand the logic behind these
> allocations.  Why does zero-audience channel 46 in Norwell get to
> pick up a VHF frequency when long-established major stations go into
> the UHF wilderness?  Did the FCC just roll dice?  Did some
> broadcasters decide that over-the-air doesn't mean anything?
>
> I can understand why you wouldn't think anything was wrong if you
> live in an area with perfect reception.  Many people don't.  Some
> are  even residents of the city of license.  I expect we'll hear
> from many  of them in February.
>
> Is there any potential for power increases, or repeaters?  If Boston
> stations can't cover Worcester, then there should be Worcester
> stations to carry the major broadcast networks.