wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 11:52 am, "Smarty" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news




Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any
is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter
ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now
need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to
100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A
good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum
pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily
been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by bureaucrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Since you seek to impugn the qualifications and decision making
process of the transition, one can only ask exactly what your
qualifications are, what tests you conducted, what cost/benefit
analysis you went through, etc to arrive at what you claim is a
superior solution? Or let me guess, you're just throwing rocks?


Trader4,

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.

Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision making by
lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

What you call "throwing rocks" suggests a haphazard and ill-conceived,
perhaps unjustified attack.

I ask you what your basis is for that accusation?

Smarty