On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:28:18 -0500, George wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:23�pm, Robert Neville wrote:
Jimw wrote:
What is the actual frequency band for DTV, and how does that compare
to the 145Mhz ?
Today most DTV signals are UHF, between 470MHz and 800MHz. After the
switchover, many will move to the VHF band.

no no no, nearly ALL remain UHF, since the new users of TV band prefer
VHF. the lower frequencies go thru buildings etc better

You may want to check your references. The "new users" will be operating
in what is now part of the UHF TV band.

While you are doing that you will also find that Clinton was a big
proponent of DTV and signed the legislation into law.

But the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Clinton signed included this:
"Television stations will be permitted to continue the broadcasting of
analog beyond 2006 (and to retain the extra channel it received from the
FCC for the transition) if less than 85% of the households in its market
have at least one of the following: (1) digital TV delivered by cable or
satellite; (2) a digital TV; (3) or a box that converts digital TV signals
for viewing on an analog set."
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...1dltr0014.html

It was Bush who signed The Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of
2005. "This act requires all U.S. television stations to discontinue
broadcasting in analog and switch to digital broadcasting beginning on
midnight, February 17, 2009."
http://www.broadbandinfo.com/cable/d...n/default.html

Imo digital tv was going to happen whoever was president. But if you want
to politicize it, blame the correct president for over-riding the original
legislation.

Ann wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:28:18 -0500, George wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:23�pm, Robert Neville wrote:
Jimw wrote:
What is the actual frequency band for DTV, and how does that compare
to the 145Mhz ?
Today most DTV signals are UHF, between 470MHz and 800MHz. After the
switchover, many will move to the VHF band.
no no no, nearly ALL remain UHF, since the new users of TV band prefer
VHF. the lower frequencies go thru buildings etc better
You may want to check your references. The "new users" will be operating
in what is now part of the UHF TV band.

While you are doing that you will also find that Clinton was a big
proponent of DTV and signed the legislation into law.

But the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Clinton signed included this:
"Television stations will be permitted to continue the broadcasting of
analog beyond 2006 (and to retain the extra channel it received from the
FCC for the transition) if less than 85% of the households in its market
have at least one of the following: (1) digital TV delivered by cable or
satellite; (2) a digital TV; (3) or a box that converts digital TV signals
for viewing on an analog set."
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...1dltr0014.html

It was Bush who signed The Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of
2005. "This act requires all U.S. television stations to discontinue
broadcasting in analog and switch to digital broadcasting beginning on
midnight, February 17, 2009."
http://www.broadbandinfo.com/cable/d...n/default.html

Imo digital tv was going to happen whoever was president. But if you want
to politicize it, blame the correct president for over-riding the original
legislation.

Just a little busting. I was just replying to someone who always blames
Bush for everything when the reality is as you further affirmed both the
red and blue teams work on behest of their owners not the "average guy".

In article ,
(Ann) says...

CU's converter box ratings are "free". Click on "Recommendations & Notes"
for write-ups on the individual boxes. CU rates on picture and sound
quality and features.

CU doesn't rate fringe reception, which is what the OP was asking about.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

Please post which converter yoiu have and rate it. Are yoiu
satisfied, or dissatisfied? What are it's pros and cons? And in
particular, how well does it perform in a fringe area?


I got the standard box the satellite company provided. It works good. I
live in the XXXtreme SW corner of Utah, and I get stations from all around
the US.

Steve

In article ,
(Jimw) says...
By the way, are there any decent antenna amplifiers for DTV, or does a
person just use the standard UHF VHF amps they always sold? I know I
can not raise my antenna any more or the mast will bend in high winds,
and towers are way beyond my budget.

The same old signal amps will work fine for digital. If you aren't
running a mast mount antenna and RG6 coax, that is probably your signal
problem. UHF is higher frequency than VHF, and there is quite a bit of
loss in coax, particularly cheap coax. The old twin lead is even worse.

Mast mount amplifiers are the best, but more work to install. If you
use an inline amplifier, mount it as close to the antenna as possible,
and before any splitters.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

In article ,
George wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:
In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Jimw wrote:

By the way, are there any decent antenna amplifiers for DTV, or does a
person just use the standard UHF VHF amps they always sold?
There is no difference between the analog and digital signal for antenna
or
amplification. Anyone selling "digital" is selling snakeoil.

Correct so far.

The only difference would be for those who are using a VHF only antenna
today
and have digital transmitters that are going to stay in the UHF band.

Partly correct, but for exactly the opposite reason you think. VHF
antennas will indeed become essentially useless. However, this is
because *ALL* digital transmitters are already on UHF (though some are
operating at lower-than-licensed power levels) and will stay there.


There is a station that holds and uses a DT license on VHF in my home
market and I can think of at least 3 more markets that have DT operating
on VHF.

A dollar says that what you've actually got is a station in your market
that has the DT license, transmits its primary signal on VHF in analog,
("business as usual") and operates a UHF "translator" (possibly at a
reduced power level) that's simulcasting the same material as the
analog/VHF signal (and probably one or more "extra" sub-channels) in
digital on the UHF frequency. When the switch hits, expect the VHF
signal to go dead.

The whole point of the switch is to get broadcast TV off the VHF bands
so they can be used for other purposes. Leaving some stations on VHF
would defeat that purpose. ("low power" stations are the exception -
While I haven't been interested enough to chase down exactly what makes
a "low power" station, it's a pretty safe bet that they're all so
"quiet" they won't cause anything but minimal, if any, interference with
whatever use the VHF band gets put to after the switch is completed.)

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

In article ,
(Jimw) says...

So, in reality, I could saw off the LARGE end of my VHF-UHF antenna
and just use the end with the small beams..... Right?
(Not that I intend to do this, just asking).

Only about half of the VHF band is being repurposed. Some stations will
continue to transmit a VHF digital signal.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

Don Bruder wrote:

A dollar says that what you've actually got is a station in your market
that has the DT license, transmits its primary signal on VHF in analog,
("business as usual") and operates a UHF "translator" (possibly at a
reduced power level) that's simulcasting the same material as the
analog/VHF signal (and probably one or more "extra" sub-channels) in
digital on the UHF frequency. When the switch hits, expect the VHF
signal to go dead.

Don, you really need to stop posting misinformation like this. Many VHF stations
are broadcasting a DTV signal on a temporary UHFfrequency. When they kill their
analog VHF broadcast, it will be replaced with a digital VHF broadcast.

Again, if you'd like a reasonably understandable article on the topic:
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/MusicalChairs.html

The whole point of the switch is to get broadcast TV off the VHF bands
so they can be used for other purposes. Leaving some stations on VHF
would defeat that purpose. ("low power" stations are the exception -

No, it isn't. The frequencies that are being auctioned off are high UHF.

What may be the source of your confusion is a proposal to utilize the "white
space" VHF frequencies for other purposes.

Currently, VHF TV channels are not allowed to be adjacent to each other so they
don't interfere. That leaves a lot of unused VHF frequencies around the country.
IIRC, the thinking is that when TV goes digital, there won't be as great a
potential for interference and thus those blank channels could be used for other
purposes.

On Jan 8, 8:04 am, ransley wrote:
On Jan 7, 10:19 pm, Robert Neville wrote:

ransley wrote:
The reviews I read by a store address the issue that some work better
in reception, and give ratings.

Most of the stations are currently broadcasting their digital signals on
temporary UHF frequencies. UHF has poorer performance than VHF. After the
switchover, many stations will use their VHF analog frequencies for their
digital channels, potentially improving their signal coverage.

Bottom line is that you can't judge your converter box performance by what you
see today.

From several reviews there seems to be 4 catagories from poor to very
good covering several areas, do you believe they are equal or the
present reviews wrong in what you will get. From my take on it online
is where the better box is, and price is a reason, it is a fact
WalMart demands low prices from supliers.

Which reviews and where did you read that actually reviewed anything
that one could relate to such issues as S:N, input sensitivity, noise,
etc., that have direct correlation to signal pickup? All I've seen is
stuff that is peripherally related at best ("slightly fewer pixel
dropouts") while concentrating on peripheral issues like setup and
convenience of program content.

--

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:47:45 -0500, George wrote:

Ann wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:28:18 -0500, George wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:23�pm, Robert Neville wrote:
Jimw wrote:
What is the actual frequency band for DTV, and how does that compare
to the 145Mhz ?
Today most DTV signals are UHF, between 470MHz and 800MHz. After the
switchover, many will move to the VHF band.
no no no, nearly ALL remain UHF, since the new users of TV band prefer
VHF. the lower frequencies go thru buildings etc better
You may want to check your references. The "new users" will be
operating in what is now part of the UHF TV band.

While you are doing that you will also find that Clinton was a big
proponent of DTV and signed the legislation into law.

But the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Clinton signed included this:
"Television stations will be permitted to continue the broadcasting of
analog beyond 2006 (and to retain the extra channel it received from the
FCC for the transition) if less than 85% of the households in its market
have at least one of the following: (1) digital TV delivered by cable or
satellite; (2) a digital TV; (3) or a box that converts digital TV
signals for viewing on an analog set."
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlt...1dltr0014.html

It was Bush who signed The Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of
2005. "This act requires all U.S. television stations to discontinue
broadcasting in analog and switch to digital broadcasting beginning on
midnight, February 17, 2009."
http://www.broadbandinfo.com/cable/d...n/default.html

Imo digital tv was going to happen whoever was president. But if you
want to politicize it, blame the correct president for over-riding the
original legislation.

Just a little busting. I was just replying to someone who always blames
Bush for everything when the reality is as you further affirmed both the
red and blue teams work on behest of their owners not the "average guy".

OK.

On Jan 8, 8:10 am, Don Bruder wrote:
....
In theory (once again...) raising an antenna any amount is helpful. But
in practice, there's a "minimum increase" number (Which I can't remember
for certain without looking it up - I'm wanting to say it's 10-12 feet)
below which the change doesn't give any significant payoff for the
effort.

....
Excepting, of course, for the case were raising it clears an
obstruction or echo path or similar physical change as opposed to
simply elevation above clear, flat ground.

--

In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary purposes
of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses. *ALL* digital
transmissions are on UHF now (on channels 14 through 51, between 470 and
698MHz, to be exact) and will remain there after the switch.


Sorry Don. I'm afraid you are very confused. The frequencies associated UHF
Channels 52 to 69 are being auctioned off - not the VHF frequencies. Stations
have the option of moving their digital channels back to VHF after the
transition if they want, or they can stay on their temporariy UHF channel if
it
is below 52. Since low VHF has better propagation than VHF and is cheaper to
run
a transmitter on, those stations current on 2-7 for analog will likely stay
there for digital.

Notice that it's *52-69* being auctioned? Notice that 14-51 are where
DTV broadcasting is happening?

But don't take my word for it - Do your own research, same as I did, and
find out that everything I've said is dead-on accurate, regardless of
what some self-proclaimed "HDTV expert" blog has to say about it. Also
note that "HDTV" has exactly *NOTHING* to do with "DTV" beyond the fact
that they share some letters.

HDTV CAN (although there is no REQUIREMENT for it) be delivered over a
DTV channel. HDTV is shorthand that is properly expanded to "High
Definition TV", a superset of "regular definition" TV, and it can be
(and originally was) transmitted on analog channels with zero changes to
the signal.

DTV is shorthand that is properly expanded to "Digital TV", and is just
that: Television transmitted digitally, with absolutely no consideration
whatsoever given to whether the picture being transmitted is high-,
low-, or anything-in-between-, definition. Unlike HDTV, it isn't
possible to deliver "DTV" over an analog signal path without converting
it to an analog signal.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:52:12 -0800, Larry Caldwell wrote:

In article ,
(Ann) says...

CU's converter box ratings are "free". Click on "Recommendations &
Notes" for write-ups on the individual boxes. CU rates on picture and
sound quality and features.

CU doesn't rate fringe reception, which is what the OP was asking about.

I wasn't replying to the OP. Look back in the thread; it was someone else
who posted that the CU report rated "reception". Posting the url clarified
that and any misconception that it is "pay" content. The information in
the report may be useful to those interested in "picture and sound quality
and features". Anyway, since when has staying on-topic been a requirement
for posting to m.r? g

Don Bruder wrote:
In article ,
George wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:
In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Jimw wrote:

By the way, are there any decent antenna amplifiers for DTV, or does a
person just use the standard UHF VHF amps they always sold?
There is no difference between the analog and digital signal for antenna
or
amplification. Anyone selling "digital" is selling snakeoil.
Correct so far.

The only difference would be for those who are using a VHF only antenna
today
and have digital transmitters that are going to stay in the UHF band.
Partly correct, but for exactly the opposite reason you think. VHF
antennas will indeed become essentially useless. However, this is
because *ALL* digital transmitters are already on UHF (though some are
operating at lower-than-licensed power levels) and will stay there.

There is a station that holds and uses a DT license on VHF in my home
market and I can think of at least 3 more markets that have DT operating
on VHF.

A dollar says that what you've actually got is a station in your market
that has the DT license, transmits its primary signal on VHF in analog,
("business as usual") and operates a UHF "translator" (possibly at a
reduced power level) that's simulcasting the same material as the
analog/VHF signal (and probably one or more "extra" sub-channels) in
digital on the UHF frequency. When the switch hits, expect the VHF
signal to go dead.

Sorry, you are just completely wrong. I know the engineering manager at
that station and have seen most of their equipment and know how it
works. I also know they were overjoyed to get the VHF DT allocation
which they elected to keep.


The whole point of the switch is to get broadcast TV off the VHF bands
so they can be used for other purposes. Leaving some stations on VHF
would defeat that purpose. ("low power" stations are the exception -
While I haven't been interested enough to chase down exactly what makes
a "low power" station, it's a pretty safe bet that they're all so
"quiet" they won't cause anything but minimal, if any, interference with
whatever use the VHF band gets put to after the switch is completed.)

Actually the whole point was to lower the amount of spectrum allocated
to TV services and transfer it to other uses by decommissioning a block
of the *higher* UHF channels.

On Jan 8, 10:21�am, dpb wrote:
On Jan 8, 8:10 am, Don Bruder wrote:
... In theory (once again...) raising an antenna any amount is helpful. But
in practice, there's a "minimum increase" number (Which I can't remember
for certain without looking it up - I'm wanting to say it's 10-12 feet)
below which the change doesn't give any significant payoff for the
effort.

...
Excepting, of course, for the case were raising it clears an
obstruction or echo path or similar physical change as opposed to
simply elevation above clear, flat ground.

--

the lower elevation may be better, or worse.

Radio signals are like waves in a pond, drop a couple rocks in, ever
notice where some waves get larger and others smaller and sometimes
disappear altogether.

as to the ham radio antenna for tv viewing.

it can work if the antenna happens to be a multiple of the desired
frequency.

this is part of how multi band antennas are designed

I obtained the RCA converter early last year, before the 'B' model
came out, but it works fine. By the time I received my coupons,
Wal-Mart was out of the RCA units while still awash in the Magnavox
units. I picked up two of the Zenith converters from the local Radio
Shack. It works well too.
My local station transmitter farm is about 50 miles south. I also
got a new antenna from Radio Shack but have not installed it yet.
Still using an older 'outdoor' V-shape antenna that's 20+ years old
hanging in the attic. Too cold to go swap it out right now.

On 1/8/2009 7:23 AM Don Bruder spake thus:

In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary purposes
of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses. *ALL* digital
transmissions are on UHF now (on channels 14 through 51, between 470 and
698MHz, to be exact) and will remain there after the switch.

Sorry Don. I'm afraid you are very confused. The frequencies associated UHF
Channels 52 to 69 are being auctioned off - not the VHF frequencies. Stations
have the option of moving their digital channels back to VHF after the
transition if they want, or they can stay on their temporariy UHF channel if
it
is below 52. Since low VHF has better propagation than VHF and is cheaper to
run
a transmitter on, those stations current on 2-7 for analog will likely stay
there for digital.

Notice that it's *52-69* being auctioned? Notice that 14-51 are where
DTV broadcasting is happening?

But don't take my word for it - Do your own research, same as I did, and
find out that everything I've said is dead-on accurate, regardless of
what some self-proclaimed "HDTV expert" blog has to say about it. Also
note that "HDTV" has exactly *NOTHING* to do with "DTV" beyond the fact
that they share some letters.

Since what you say is in direct contradiction to what that blog said,
can you supply any authoritative cites to back up your assertions? Not
challenging them, as I'm truly confused at this point. Any links to
verifiable info would be appreciated (like maybe something from the FCC???).


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

On 01/08/09 07:01 am BR wrote:

And no, it doesn't matter that a station is now on a VHF channel, yet
transmitting digital - What's happening is that they're transmitting
on two separate frequencies - The standard analog signal on their
"old" VHF frequency, the digital signal on their "new" digital
frequency. Which, in *ALL* cases, is in the UHF band.

Not true in all markets. In fact, in the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area, two
stations are moving out of the UHF band down to channels 11 and 13!
Previously, all stations were UHF here except for the low power catholic
station on channel 7. I made a simple dipole cut for channel 12 and it
works fine to pick up 11 and 13 digital signals.

And here in W. Michigan the new channel assignments for digital TV
broadcasting include channels 5 (moved from 52), 7, 8 and 11 -- all VHF.

Perce

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:21:22 -0800, Don Bruder
wrote:


Partly correct, but for exactly the opposite reason you think. VHF
antennas will indeed become essentially useless. However, this is
because *ALL* digital transmitters are already on UHF (though some are
operating at lower-than-licensed power levels) and will stay there. When
the VHF signal is turned off in February, the VHF antennas will still
function as (lousy) antennas, but performance is likely to be so poor
that they won't be useful except in cases where there are very strong
signals.

And no, it doesn't matter that a station is now on a VHF channel, yet
transmitting digital - What's happening is that they're transmitting on
two separate frequencies - The standard analog signal on their "old" VHF
frequency, the digital signal on their "new" digital frequency. Which,
in *ALL* cases, is in the UHF band.

This is *not* true -- some (not all) stations that are now
broadcasting digital on a UHF channel will switch their digital
broadcast back to a VHF channel.

Check www.antennaweb.org, among other sites, for detailed station
locations from a specific address. For example, in Sacramento, KXTV
is currently Channel 10 (analog) and Channel 61 (digital). On Feb
17th, they will broadcast digitial on VHF Channel 10 (and give up
Channel 61). On the other hand, KCRA (channel 3 analog) will remain
digital on channel 35, but according to the results, their antenna
location will change.

I believe the FCC has similar information available somewhere online.

Josh

These maps show the both the individual stations' analog coverage areas
and new DTV coverage areas. For example three fringe VHS stations I
now receive have cut their coverage areas (and changed the pattern) -
which explains why I don't/won't receive their UHF digital signal.

"Map Book of All Full-Power Digital Television Stations Authorized by the
FCC"
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

On Jan 8, 2:05*pm, Josh wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:21:22 -0800, Don Bruder
wrote:



Partly correct, but for exactly the opposite reason you think. VHF
antennas will indeed become essentially useless. However, this is
because *ALL* digital transmitters are already on UHF (though some are
operating at lower-than-licensed power levels) and will stay there. When
the VHF signal is turned off in February, the VHF antennas will still
function as (lousy) antennas, but performance is likely to be so poor
that they won't be useful except in cases where there are very strong
signals.

And no, it doesn't matter that a station is now on a VHF channel, yet
transmitting digital - What's happening is that they're transmitting on
two separate frequencies - The standard analog signal on their "old" VHF
frequency, the digital signal on their "new" digital frequency. Which,
in *ALL* cases, is in the UHF band.

This is *not* true -- some (not all) stations that are now
broadcasting digital on a UHF channel will switch their digital
broadcast back to a VHF channel.

Checkwww.antennaweb.org, among other sites, for detailed station
locations from a specific address. *For example, in Sacramento, KXTV
is currently Channel 10 (analog) and Channel 61 (digital). *On Feb
17th, they will broadcast digitial on VHF Channel 10 (and give up
Channel 61). *On the other hand, KCRA (channel 3 analog) will remain
digital *on channel 35, but according to the results, their antenna
location will change.

I believe the FCC has similar information available somewhere online.

Josh

I just ordered the TIVAX STB-T8 , supposedly top rated. I'll report
my findings.

In article m,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/8/2009 7:23 AM Don Bruder spake thus:

In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary purposes
of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses. *ALL* digital
transmissions are on UHF now (on channels 14 through 51, between 470 and
698MHz, to be exact) and will remain there after the switch.

Sorry Don. I'm afraid you are very confused. The frequencies associated
UHF
Channels 52 to 69 are being auctioned off - not the VHF frequencies.
Stations
have the option of moving their digital channels back to VHF after the
transition if they want, or they can stay on their temporariy UHF channel
if
it
is below 52. Since low VHF has better propagation than VHF and is cheaper
to
run
a transmitter on, those stations current on 2-7 for analog will likely
stay
there for digital.

Notice that it's *52-69* being auctioned? Notice that 14-51 are where
DTV broadcasting is happening?

But don't take my word for it - Do your own research, same as I did, and
find out that everything I've said is dead-on accurate, regardless of
what some self-proclaimed "HDTV expert" blog has to say about it. Also
note that "HDTV" has exactly *NOTHING* to do with "DTV" beyond the fact
that they share some letters.

Since what you say is in direct contradiction to what that blog said,
can you supply any authoritative cites to back up your assertions? Not
challenging them, as I'm truly confused at this point. Any links to
verifiable info would be appreciated (like maybe something from the FCC???).

I *WISH* I could find something in the disaster that claims to be the
FCC site! Finding anything useful on *ANY* topic there seems to be
designed to be as difficult as possible. Which, in a way, is suspicious
in and of itself.

Part of the problem is "information overload" - Do a search that
includes "Digital TV", "DTV", or variations on that theme, and the
number of results is so huge that trying to find something that actually
applies is an exercise in frustration.

That said, so far, I can't find *ANYTHING* that supports *EITHER*
position from anyone that resembles any kind of "official". There's
about 17 metric buttloads of stuff from various bloggers, pundits, and
self-proclaimed experts of various flavors, most of which seems to
contradict "what the other side says", but not a bloomin' word I can
find from anything that would be called "official" to settle it once and
for all.

The closest thing I came across was a page I hit a few weeks ago (Sorry,
didn't bother to bookmark it, as I wasn't expecting to need to trot out
(c/s)ites when I was searching for information on homebrewing an antenna
for DTV reception) put up by the NAB that showed that the VHF-LO band
would essentially cease to exist, so far as TV is concerned - If I
didn't miss any when scrolling the list of 1600-ish channels and
counting numbers between 2 and 7 as they went by, there were only 6-8
stations that *WANTED* those channels, and around 15-20 that *WANTED*
channels in the 8-13 range. *EVERYTHING* else was showing as being
expected to land in the 14-51 range.

Whether that's anything like what they'll *GET* (as opposed to what they
*WANT*) seems to be up in the air, since the list was tagged as being
"tenative".

(And since it's an NAB site, not an FCC site, I'd call it, at best,
"Reasonably authoritative, but not official")

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:15:17 -0800, Don Bruder
wrote:

In article m,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/8/2009 7:23 AM Don Bruder spake thus:

In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary purposes
of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses. *ALL* digital
transmissions are on UHF now (on channels 14 through 51, between 470 and
698MHz, to be exact) and will remain there after the switch.

Sorry Don. I'm afraid you are very confused. The frequencies associated
UHF
Channels 52 to 69 are being auctioned off - not the VHF frequencies.
Stations
have the option of moving their digital channels back to VHF after the
transition if they want, or they can stay on their temporariy UHF channel
if
it
is below 52. Since low VHF has better propagation than VHF and is cheaper
to
run
a transmitter on, those stations current on 2-7 for analog will likely
stay
there for digital.

Notice that it's *52-69* being auctioned? Notice that 14-51 are where
DTV broadcasting is happening?

But don't take my word for it - Do your own research, same as I did, and
find out that everything I've said is dead-on accurate, regardless of
what some self-proclaimed "HDTV expert" blog has to say about it. Also
note that "HDTV" has exactly *NOTHING* to do with "DTV" beyond the fact
that they share some letters.

Since what you say is in direct contradiction to what that blog said,
can you supply any authoritative cites to back up your assertions? Not
challenging them, as I'm truly confused at this point. Any links to
verifiable info would be appreciated (like maybe something from the FCC???).

I *WISH* I could find something in the disaster that claims to be the
FCC site! Finding anything useful on *ANY* topic there seems to be
designed to be as difficult as possible. Which, in a way, is suspicious
in and of itself.

Part of the problem is "information overload" - Do a search that
includes "Digital TV", "DTV", or variations on that theme, and the
number of results is so huge that trying to find something that actually
applies is an exercise in frustration.

That said, so far, I can't find *ANYTHING* that supports *EITHER*
position from anyone that resembles any kind of "official". There's
about 17 metric buttloads of stuff from various bloggers, pundits, and
self-proclaimed experts of various flavors, most of which seems to
contradict "what the other side says", but not a bloomin' word I can
find from anything that would be called "official" to settle it once and
for all.

The closest thing I came across was a page I hit a few weeks ago (Sorry,
didn't bother to bookmark it, as I wasn't expecting to need to trot out
(c/s)ites when I was searching for information on homebrewing an antenna
for DTV reception) put up by the NAB that showed that the VHF-LO band
would essentially cease to exist, so far as TV is concerned - If I
didn't miss any when scrolling the list of 1600-ish channels and
counting numbers between 2 and 7 as they went by, there were only 6-8
stations that *WANTED* those channels, and around 15-20 that *WANTED*
channels in the 8-13 range. *EVERYTHING* else was showing as being
expected to land in the 14-51 range.

Whether that's anything like what they'll *GET* (as opposed to what they
*WANT*) seems to be up in the air, since the list was tagged as being
"tenative".

(And since it's an NAB site, not an FCC site, I'd call it, at best,
"Reasonably authoritative, but not official")

I'd consider the National Association of Broadcasters to be
"reasonably official"; they have a lot at stake in making sure
consumers get the right antennas to receive their member stations'
broadcasts, and they maintain the seemingly-up-to-date information at
www.antennaweb.org.

In addition to searching specific zip codes, in the "FAQ" section
there's a question about VHF vs UHF:

http://antennaweb.org/aw/info.aspx?p...Q#_Ref28770295

"...Currently, the vast majority of TV stations broadcasting in
digital are using UHF (14 and up) channels to do so. This is not due
to any technical requirement of digital broadcasting, however. It is
mostly because the UHF channels were more likely to be available in
most markets. Eventually, after the digital transition is complete
and TV stations no longer need to broadcast in analog, they may switch
and use their current analog VHF channels for digital instead. ..."

....and the database lookup shows which stations are planning to do so.

Josh

When I got my coupons, it was near impossible to even find a DTV
converter in the stores. I finally had to drive a long distance to
buy and Apex converter which was the only one available, and I only
had 2 days left before my coupons expired.

Huh? Mine expire on the day of the switch-over in Feb. I didn't
realize there were different expiry dates.

Thanks

Twayne

I was not impressed by
this converter, at least as far as reception in my rural area. Of
course I live in a fringe area, and I can not get much for stations.
The nearest station is 50 miles, and it gets further for others. I
use a fairly decent rooftop antenna, which is about 24feet from the
ground, and I have a rotor.

What I was getting was one channel (from 50 miles) that worked on and
off, and would fade in and out, and some days did not come in at all.
The only channel that worked all the time was one of the PBS channels
(and their secondary channels). Note: On analog, I get 5 channels
well, and 3 more that are fair to poor.

A elderly relative lives in a large city, and I took my Apex converter
over there and hooked it up. She was satisfied with it, and she needs
something real simple, being elderly. So, I told her to keep that
one, and give me her coupon. Now I want to buy one that will work in
my fringe rural area, and there are piles of them in the stores. I'm
trying to determine which one to get. My biggest concern is getting
one that will get the best reception in a fringe area.

Please post which converter yoiu have and rate it. Are yoiu
satisfied, or dissatisfied? What are it's pros and cons? And in
particular, how well does it perform in a fringe area?

Thanks

Jim

(---MIKE---) wrote in news:25094-496601D0-506
@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net:

I have a Magnavox converter and get excellent digital reception. In
fact I get NBC and FOX which I never got on analog. A friend who lives
about 15 miles away gets only one station with digital even though he
has good analog reception of 5 stations. He has a good outside antenna
and uses RG6 cable. He is not happy.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')


You don't get ch 3, WCAX (CBS) out of Burlington? They transmit digital
from the top of Mt Mansfield. You're around Mt Washington. You on the wrong
side of the mountain or do you have sequoias outside your door?

A friend who lives about 15 miles away

Next door neighbor huh? :-)

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:15:17 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:

In article m,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/8/2009 7:23 AM Don Bruder spake thus:

In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary
purposes of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses.
*ALL* digital transmissions are on UHF now (on channels 14 through
51, between 470 and 698MHz, to be exact) and will remain there
after the switch.

Sorry Don. I'm afraid you are very confused. The frequencies
associated UHF
Channels 52 to 69 are being auctioned off - not the VHF frequencies.
Stations
have the option of moving their digital channels back to VHF after
the transition if they want, or they can stay on their temporariy
UHF channel if
it
is below 52. Since low VHF has better propagation than VHF and is
cheaper to
run
a transmitter on, those stations current on 2-7 for analog will
likely stay
there for digital.

Notice that it's *52-69* being auctioned? Notice that 14-51 are where
DTV broadcasting is happening?

But don't take my word for it - Do your own research, same as I did,
and find out that everything I've said is dead-on accurate,
regardless of what some self-proclaimed "HDTV expert" blog has to say
about it. Also note that "HDTV" has exactly *NOTHING* to do with
"DTV" beyond the fact that they share some letters.

Since what you say is in direct contradiction to what that blog said,
can you supply any authoritative cites to back up your assertions? Not
challenging them, as I'm truly confused at this point. Any links to
verifiable info would be appreciated (like maybe something from the
FCC???).

I *WISH* I could find something in the disaster that claims to be the
FCC site! Finding anything useful on *ANY* topic there seems to be
designed to be as difficult as possible. Which, in a way, is suspicious
in and of itself.

Part of the problem is "information overload" - Do a search that
includes "Digital TV", "DTV", or variations on that theme, and the
number of results is so huge that trying to find something that actually
applies is an exercise in frustration.

That said, so far, I can't find *ANYTHING* that supports *EITHER*
position from anyone that resembles any kind of "official". There's
about 17 metric buttloads of stuff from various bloggers, pundits, and
self-proclaimed experts of various flavors, most of which seems to
contradict "what the other side says", but not a bloomin' word I can
find from anything that would be called "official" to settle it once and
for all.

The closest thing I came across was a page I hit a few weeks ago (Sorry,
didn't bother to bookmark it, as I wasn't expecting to need to trot out
(c/s)ites when I was searching for information on homebrewing an antenna
for DTV reception) put up by the NAB that showed that the VHF-LO band
would essentially cease to exist, so far as TV is concerned - If I
didn't miss any when scrolling the list of 1600-ish channels and
counting numbers between 2 and 7 as they went by, there were only 6-8
stations that *WANTED* those channels, and around 15-20 that *WANTED*
channels in the 8-13 range. *EVERYTHING* else was showing as being
expected to land in the 14-51 range.

Whether that's anything like what they'll *GET* (as opposed to what they
*WANT*) seems to be up in the air, since the list was tagged as being
"tenative".

(And since it's an NAB site, not an FCC site, I'd call it, at best,
"Reasonably authoritative, but not official")

Agreed that the FCC website is beyond dreadful, which is why I gave up and
searched in google. I never did find the alleged final DTV Table (of
Allotments) released 8/6/07, but did find another FCC document that lists
post-transition channels. If you scan down through, you'll find
post-transition channels in the UHF range.

FCC 07-228, Third Periodic Review of the Commissions Rules and Policies
Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, Report and Order,

Appendix D - List of Stations identified as Ready to Commence
Post-Transition Operations

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-07-228A2.pdf

Don Bruder wrote:

I *WISH* I could find something in the disaster that claims to be the
FCC site! Finding anything useful on *ANY* topic there seems to be
designed to be as difficult as possible. Which, in a way, is suspicious
in and of itself.


A few too many black helicopters around lately? It's not that hard to find the
data:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

Find your city, open the PDF file. Each station has a coverage map that shows
the current analog channel and the final digital channel, along with the
corresponding coverage for each signal.

Note that the temporary channels being used today to broadcast a digital signal
are not the same as what will be used after the digital transition, except for
the few stations that plan to "flash cut" from analog to digital with no
overlapping.

Correction ... make that post-transition channels in the VHF range.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:04:14 -0500, Ann wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:15:17 -0800, Don Bruder wrote:

In article m,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 1/8/2009 7:23 AM Don Bruder spake thus:

In article ,
Robert Neville wrote:

Don Bruder wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but that's *TOTALLY* incorrect. One of the primary
purposes of the switch is to open up the VHF bands for other uses.
*ALL* digital transmissions are on UHF now (on channels 14 through
51, between 470 and 698MHz, to be exact) and will remain there
after the switch.

Sorry Don. I'm afraid you are very confused. The frequencies
associated UHF
Channels 52 to 69 are being auctioned off - not the VHF frequencies.
Stations
have the option of moving their digital channels back to VHF after
the transition if they want, or they can stay on their temporariy
UHF channel if
it
is below 52. Since low VHF has better propagation than VHF and is
cheaper to
run
a transmitter on, those stations current on 2-7 for analog will
likely stay
there for digital.

Notice that it's *52-69* being auctioned? Notice that 14-51 are where
DTV broadcasting is happening?

But don't take my word for it - Do your own research, same as I did,
and find out that everything I've said is dead-on accurate,
regardless of what some self-proclaimed "HDTV expert" blog has to say
about it. Also note that "HDTV" has exactly *NOTHING* to do with
"DTV" beyond the fact that they share some letters.

Since what you say is in direct contradiction to what that blog said,
can you supply any authoritative cites to back up your assertions? Not
challenging them, as I'm truly confused at this point. Any links to
verifiable info would be appreciated (like maybe something from the
FCC???).

I *WISH* I could find something in the disaster that claims to be the
FCC site! Finding anything useful on *ANY* topic there seems to be
designed to be as difficult as possible. Which, in a way, is suspicious
in and of itself.

Part of the problem is "information overload" - Do a search that
includes "Digital TV", "DTV", or variations on that theme, and the
number of results is so huge that trying to find something that actually
applies is an exercise in frustration.

That said, so far, I can't find *ANYTHING* that supports *EITHER*
position from anyone that resembles any kind of "official". There's
about 17 metric buttloads of stuff from various bloggers, pundits, and
self-proclaimed experts of various flavors, most of which seems to
contradict "what the other side says", but not a bloomin' word I can
find from anything that would be called "official" to settle it once and
for all.

The closest thing I came across was a page I hit a few weeks ago (Sorry,
didn't bother to bookmark it, as I wasn't expecting to need to trot out
(c/s)ites when I was searching for information on homebrewing an antenna
for DTV reception) put up by the NAB that showed that the VHF-LO band
would essentially cease to exist, so far as TV is concerned - If I
didn't miss any when scrolling the list of 1600-ish channels and
counting numbers between 2 and 7 as they went by, there were only 6-8
stations that *WANTED* those channels, and around 15-20 that *WANTED*
channels in the 8-13 range. *EVERYTHING* else was showing as being
expected to land in the 14-51 range.

Whether that's anything like what they'll *GET* (as opposed to what they
*WANT*) seems to be up in the air, since the list was tagged as being
"tenative".

(And since it's an NAB site, not an FCC site, I'd call it, at best,
"Reasonably authoritative, but not official")

Agreed that the FCC website is beyond dreadful, which is why I gave up and
searched in google. I never did find the alleged final DTV Table (of
Allotments) released 8/6/07, but did find another FCC document that lists
post-transition channels. If you scan down through, you'll find
post-transition channels in the UHF range.

FCC 07-228, Third Periodic Review of the Commissions Rules and Policies
Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, Report and Order,

Appendix D - List of Stations identified as Ready to Commence
Post-Transition Operations

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-07-228A2.pdf

To bring this thread back to the original question, that being how to rate the
performance of the DTV converters on the market today, it would help to keep in
mind the following facts:

- Most of the stations broadcasting DTV signals today are using
temporary UHF frequencies at less than full power
- After the DTV transition, there will be a mix of VHF and UHF
frequencies in use, so depending on your market, you may need a VHF/UHF antenna
- If you haven't been watching UHF channels before and your DTV stations
will be on UHF, you may find your house coax/splitters needing attention. UHF
frequencies are much more sensitive to substandard wiring.
- There is no difference from an antenna/coax perspective between
analong and digital television. Anyone trying to sell you an HD unique
antenna/coax/splitter doesn't know what they are talking about.

Given all the above, drawing conclusions about the performance of a given DTV
converter (other than things like the GUI or remote) until after the switchover
is difficult.

Ann wrote:

If you scan down through, you'll find
post-transition channels in the UHF range.

As well as any number in the VHF range (hi and low).

Ann wrote:

Correction ... make that post-transition channels in the VHF range.

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:07:28 -0500, Ann wrote:

These maps show the both the individual stations' analog coverage areas
and new DTV coverage areas. For example three fringe VHS stations I
now receive have cut their coverage areas (and changed the pattern) -
which explains why I don't/won't receive their UHF digital signal.

"Map Book of All Full-Power Digital Television Stations Authorized by the
FCC"
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

This looks like a useful thing, until you look at the choices. They
are only the biggest cities. Where I live, the stations come from
smaller cities, and they are not on the list. Once again, us rural
folks are ignored. That's my major gripe about DTV. Anyone in medium
or large city can buy a converter and brag how they got more stations
and (supposedly) a better picture.

The rest of us in small cities or rural areas are either losing
channels or not getting any. Or else we get constant dropouts and
blank screens. I never much complained when I'd get periods of snow
and sometimes almost full picture loss on analog. I could always at
least still hear the sound and continue with the program I was
watching. It was rare it would get so bad that I'd have to leave that
channel. I very much hate the ALL or NOTHING signals of DTV. Either
it works perfectly, or the station is blank. That is more than
annoying. THen there are those screen breakups, where it looks like
someone made a jigsaw puzzle out of the picture. Also very annoying.
Much worse than screen "snow".

What really irks me the most is that they call this "progress".
Progress is when something gets BETTER and/or EASIER to use. This is
NOT progress. And for those who think the picture is better, I
honestly dont see any difference (when I do get a signal). Sure, its
a perfect picture, but half the time there is no picture at all. I've
gotten a "perfect" picture on analog tv too, and when it's not
perfect, its still watchable most of the time. If *I* was the person
to make the choice of what IS progress, I'd choose ANALOG. The reason
is simple. When I'm watching a football game, I want to watch that
game. If the screen gets a little fuzzy, I can still see the game.
But when a DTV signal goes blank, I'm finished watching the program.

Once again, the city folks will seldon have blackouts (signal loss),
so they will be happy and brag how great DTV is, but us rural folks
(who are the least likely to have access to cable tv), will be left
out in the cold, with a tv that only works part of the time and at any
moment can just lose signal in the middle of an important program.

I dont have access to cable, and doubt it will ever happen in the near
future. Satellite tv is extremely expensive around here. So, as far
as I'm concerned, I will be left with a worthless tv, converter or
not.

Jim

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:00:41 -0800, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

In article ,
(Jimw) says...

So, in reality, I could saw off the LARGE end of my VHF-UHF antenna
and just use the end with the small beams..... Right?
(Not that I intend to do this, just asking).

Only about half of the VHF band is being repurposed. Some stations will
continue to transmit a VHF digital signal.

Well, this brings up a question I have had for awhile. WILL FM RADIO
BE ELIMINATED NEXT? The reason is that FM radio is in the VHF band,
right below (or is it above) TV Channel 6. I know this for fact,
because when I was a kid, I lived in a city that had channel 6 tv.
The sound from channel 6 tv could be listened to on the very bottom
most position on the fm radio dial. (which is about 88 mhz). I
remember a few times I'd have to go somewhere and would listen to
whatever tv program I was watching on a portable or car radio.
So, since the govt. wants the VHF band to sell to the cellphone
companies, will they next get rid of FM radio?

Jim

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:54:42 -0600, Jimw wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:07:28 -0500, Ann wrote:

These maps show the both the individual stations' analog coverage areas
and new DTV coverage areas. For example three fringe VHS stations I now
receive have cut their coverage areas (and changed the pattern) - which
explains why I don't/won't receive their UHF digital signal.

"Map Book of All Full-Power Digital Television Stations Authorized by the
FCC"
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

This looks like a useful thing, until you look at the choices. They are
only the biggest cities. Where I live, the stations come from smaller
cities, and they are not on the list. Once again, us rural folks are
ignored. That's my major gripe about DTV. Anyone in medium or large city
can buy a converter and brag how they got more stations and (supposedly) a
better picture.

The list is by market areas - which areas include small cities, towns, and
rural. What I did was look at the maps for the three different market
areas where the transmission towers for the stations I receive are located.

The rest of us in small cities or rural areas are either losing channels
or not getting any. Or else we get constant dropouts and blank screens.
I never much complained when I'd get periods of snow and sometimes
almost full picture loss on analog. I could always at least still hear
the sound and continue with the program I was watching. It was rare it
would get so bad that I'd have to leave that channel. I very much hate
the ALL or NOTHING signals of DTV. Either it works perfectly, or the
station is blank. That is more than annoying. THen there are those
screen breakups, where it looks like someone made a jigsaw puzzle out of
the picture. Also very annoying. Much worse than screen "snow".

I do more listening to TV than actually watching it and find the sound
cutting out more annoying than the pixillation.

What really irks me the most is that they call this "progress". Progress
is when something gets BETTER and/or EASIER to use. This is NOT
progress.
And for those who think the picture is better, I honestly dont see any
difference (when I do get a signal). Sure, its a perfect picture, but
half the time there is no picture at all. I've gotten a "perfect"
picture on analog tv too, and when it's not perfect, its still watchable
most of the time. If *I* was the person to make the choice of what IS
progress, I'd choose ANALOG. The reason is simple. When I'm watching a
football game, I want to watch that game. If the screen gets a little
fuzzy, I can still see the game. But when a DTV signal goes blank, I'm
finished watching the program.

Once again, the city folks will seldon have blackouts (signal loss), so
they will be happy and brag how great DTV is, but us rural folks (who
are the least likely to have access to cable tv), will be left out in
the cold, with a tv that only works part of the time and at any moment
can just lose signal in the middle of an important program.

That "city folks" get better OTA reception is incorrect. In the two cities
where I've lived, cable was a necessity (for analog).

I dont have access to cable, and doubt it will ever happen in the near
future. Satellite tv is extremely expensive around here. So, as far as
I'm concerned, I will be left with a worthless tv, converter or not.

Jim

On Jan 9, 1:54�am, Jimw wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:07:28 -0500, Ann wrote:
These maps show the both the individual stations' analog coverage areas
and new DTV coverage areas. �For example three fringe VHS stations I
now receive have cut their coverage areas (and changed the pattern) -
which explains why I don't/won't receive their UHF digital signal. �

"Map Book of All Full-Power Digital Television Stations Authorized by the
FCC"
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/

This looks like a useful thing, until you look at the choices. �They
are only the biggest cities. �Where I live, the stations come from
smaller cities, and they are not on the list. �Once again, us rural
folks are ignored. �That's my major gripe about DTV. �Anyone in medium
or large city can buy a converter and brag how they got more stations
and (supposedly) a better picture. �

The rest of us in small cities or rural areas are either losing
channels or not getting any. �Or else we get constant dropouts and
blank screens. �I never much complained when I'd get periods of snow
and sometimes almost full picture loss on analog. �I could always at
least still hear the sound and continue with the program I was
watching. �It was rare it would get so bad that I'd have to leave that
channel. �I very much hate the ALL or NOTHING signals of DTV. �Either
it works perfectly, or the station is blank. �That is more than
annoying. �THen there are those screen breakups, where it looks like
someone made a jigsaw puzzle out of the picture. �Also very annoying.
Much worse than screen "snow".

What really irks me the most is that they call this "progress".
Progress is when something gets BETTER and/or EASIER to use. �This is
NOT progress. � And for those who think the picture is better, I
honestly dont see any difference (when I do get a signal). �Sure, its
a perfect picture, but half the time there is no picture at all. �I've
gotten a "perfect" picture on analog tv too, and when it's not
perfect, its still watchable most of the time. �If *I* was the person
to make the choice of what IS progress, I'd choose ANALOG. �The reason
is simple. �When I'm watching a football game, I want to watch that
game. �If the screen gets a little fuzzy, I can still see the game.
But when a DTV signal goes blank, I'm finished watching the program. �

Once again, the city folks will seldon have blackouts (signal loss),
so they will be happy and brag how great DTV is, but us rural folks
(who are the least likely to have access to cable tv), will be left
out in the cold, with a tv that only works part of the time and at any
moment can just lose signal in the middle of an important program. �

I dont have access to cable, and doubt it will ever happen in the near
future. �Satellite tv is extremely expensive around here. �So, as far
as I'm concerned, I will be left with a worthless tv, converter or
not.

Jim

you sum up the problem very well, sadly those with cable or satellite
wouldnt care much.

and after calling my congressmens office I found out the lady
answering the phones doesnt care either.

I haD A VERY UNPLEASANT CONVERSATION WITH HER

I hate to see anyone get fired, but she aT LEAST DESERVES A STRONG
WARNING.

Perhaps I feel invested in my rep siince I was a campaign volunteer?

In article ,
(Jimw) says...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:00:41 -0800, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

In article ,
(Jimw) says...

So, in reality, I could saw off the LARGE end of my VHF-UHF antenna
and just use the end with the small beams..... Right?
(Not that I intend to do this, just asking).

Only about half of the VHF band is being repurposed. Some stations will
continue to transmit a VHF digital signal.

Well, this brings up a question I have had for awhile. WILL FM RADIO
BE ELIMINATED NEXT? The reason is that FM radio is in the VHF band,
right below (or is it above) TV Channel 6. I know this for fact,
because when I was a kid, I lived in a city that had channel 6 tv.
The sound from channel 6 tv could be listened to on the very bottom
most position on the fm radio dial. (which is about 88 mhz). I
remember a few times I'd have to go somewhere and would listen to
whatever tv program I was watching on a portable or car radio.
So, since the govt. wants the VHF band to sell to the cellphone
companies, will they next get rid of FM radio?

They have been broadcasting digital radio for quite some time, on both
the FM and AM band. Google HD Radio for details. Not many HD receivers
are available yet. Before Christmas I tried to buy a Bose Wave system
with HD radio, and they don't make one.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

wrote:

and after calling my congressmens office I found out the lady
answering the phones doesnt care either.

I haD A VERY UNPLEASANT CONVERSATION WITH HER

I hate to see anyone get fired, but she aT LEAST DESERVES A STRONG
WARNING.

Perhaps I feel invested in my rep siince I was a campaign volunteer?

So who is your rep?

Jimw wrote:

This looks like a useful thing, until you look at the choices. They
are only the biggest cities. Where I live, the stations come from
smaller cities, and they are not on the list.

You might want to look a little closer. The FCC follows the standard MSA
convention - that is Metropolitan Statistical Area. If you find the nearest MSA
and look inside, you should find your "local" stations.

Jimw wrote:

So, since the govt. wants the VHF band to sell to the cellphone
companies, will they next get rid of FM radio?

None of the VHF (hi or lo), or the FM bands are being reallocated at this time
or anytime in the near future, so relax.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:33:27 -0700, Robert Neville wrote:

Jimw wrote:

This looks like a useful thing, until you look at the choices. They are
only the biggest cities. Where I live, the stations come from smaller
cities, and they are not on the list.

You might want to look a little closer. The FCC follows the standard MSA
convention - that is Metropolitan Statistical Area. If you find the
nearest MSA and look inside, you should find your "local" stations.

No, as the page says, those are the FCC's (214) designated market areas -
210 of which correspond to Nielsen's market areas plus 4 (offshore) added
by the FCC. The U.S has 363 MSAs.