What will the Boston television frequencies be after February

[Maureen Carney]

Scott wrote:
>Low-band V, however, is a bad place to be for DTV, especially in urban areas. 
>(Stations like WLBZ are taking a stab at keeping low-band V for digital for 
>two reasons - low power levels and therefore low power bills, and the 
>hope, rational or not, that they'll retain good coverage of their very large 
>viewing area by staying on channel 2.)

I seem to remember that when a station in Dallas experimented a digital signal on a low V (IIRC channel 4) it interfered with medical equipment at a nearby hospital.