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

[Aaron Read]

 > 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.
 >

Quite the opposite from what I hear.  Especially low-band VHF, like 
channels 2-6, have terrible coverage with DTV.  That's a major reason 
why there are several proposals to force the 24 Ch.5 & 6 DTV stations to 
the UHF band and repurpose those frequencies into more FM 
coverage/cleanup the AM Band.   Don't laugh, the guys at BMC have really 
done their homework and it CAN work, if the politics can be overcome.

http://www.radioworld.com/article/65186

I don't know the physics, but anecdotally I've heard the UHF band is 
generally getting much better DTV coverage...presumably thanks to the 
higher ERP's...and I would assume something about the nature of 
frequency propagation at UHF frequencies also makes a difference?


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Read		    |  Finger Lakes Public Radio
readaaron@friedbagels.com   |  General Manager (WEOS & WHWS-LP)
Geneva, NY 14456	    |  www.weos.org / www.whws.fm