Sinclair warns of 112 channels being dropped by DISH next Monday (8/16)
- Thread starter syphix
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 658
- Views 82K
Picture quality aside, viewable VHF analog TV over open range carries much farther that digital because at the digital cliff (there is no picture and no sound) whereas at that same signal level (analog and digital signals on the same frequency carry exactly the same) analog TV still has a somewhat snowy picture and the sound may be a bit fuzzy, but it was watchable.
As for VHF vs UHF, the shorter wavelength of UHF means that the signal does not bend over the horizon or over mountains as sharply as VHF does. Conversely UHF is slightly better at penetrating through building walls and trees. So, if you have no trees obstructing your reception of a VHF station and a UHF station transmitting from the same location, the VHF signal would probably be stronger, even discounting the fact that the FCC has throttled VHF transmitters to much lower power that UHF exactly becasue ot the VHF frequencies tendency to follow the curvature of the earth better then UHF - the FCC does not presently regulate trees.
Back in the analog days we had OTA channels 6, 8 and 10 back home and channel 6 was about 28 miles north, channel 10 was about 50 miles north and channel 8 was about 73 miles north. Of course we had a fringe antenna (seem my avatar) mounted on a 40 ft telescoping mast on top of the peak of our roof that was at lease 20 ft maybe 25 ft AGL to pick up channel 8, but we were able to receive it clearly in living color (NBC) with little or no perceptible snow on their two edge signal. This antenna was also occasionally able to pick up channel 28 out of Lubbock on a rare occasion (175 miles) and regularly able to get channel 7 out of Odessa (100 miles) and channel 9 out of Monahans (85 miles) at night. Since the digital transition channel 8 is much mor problematic to receive (frequencies have not changed but my beautiful Finco 400 was terminally damaged by a severe thunderstorm and is no more.
VHF was more common and better suited for out west where there are wide open spaces than in crowded urban areas where most viewers are nearer by.
As for VHF vs UHF, the shorter wavelength of UHF means that the signal does not bend over the horizon or over mountains as sharply as VHF does. Conversely UHF is slightly better at penetrating through building walls and trees. So, if you have no trees obstructing your reception of a VHF station and a UHF station transmitting from the same location, the VHF signal would probably be stronger, even discounting the fact that the FCC has throttled VHF transmitters to much lower power that UHF exactly becasue ot the VHF frequencies tendency to follow the curvature of the earth better then UHF - the FCC does not presently regulate trees.
Back in the analog days we had OTA channels 6, 8 and 10 back home and channel 6 was about 28 miles north, channel 10 was about 50 miles north and channel 8 was about 73 miles north. Of course we had a fringe antenna (seem my avatar) mounted on a 40 ft telescoping mast on top of the peak of our roof that was at lease 20 ft maybe 25 ft AGL to pick up channel 8, but we were able to receive it clearly in living color (NBC) with little or no perceptible snow on their two edge signal. This antenna was also occasionally able to pick up channel 28 out of Lubbock on a rare occasion (175 miles) and regularly able to get channel 7 out of Odessa (100 miles) and channel 9 out of Monahans (85 miles) at night. Since the digital transition channel 8 is much mor problematic to receive (frequencies have not changed but my beautiful Finco 400 was terminally damaged by a severe thunderstorm and is no more.
VHF was more common and better suited for out west where there are wide open spaces than in crowded urban areas where most viewers are nearer by.
Star Trek predicted the digital cliff in 1986Again, the issue is the digital cliff. The SIGNAL should go just as far (everything being equal). But, an analog signal degrades as the received signal declines. A digital signal will be good, be good, be good, be good, some pixelization, gone.
Wiki has a good image:
Basically where the two lines cross, you're probably still seeing an image with an analog broadcast. With a digital one, you get "no signal". The same signal strength is at the receiver.
You can't really say "picture quality aside" and then say the picture quality is what determines "reception".
With all things being the same, frequency is the same, power is the same, terrain is the same, etc, a digital signal will go just as far as an analog signal. You'll get the exact same signal strength at the receive point. At issue is how much signal strength is needed for a viewable picture. As the received signal strength degrades, the analog picture quality will deteriorate. However, until a certain point with digital, you'll still have perfect quality. But, you will reach a point as the strength continues to decline where digital "falls off the cliff" and you no longer have ANY picture. Analog you will still have an image.
Actually the digital signal in reality has shorter distance...obstacles degrade a digital signal more than analog
You can only lose so many 1s and 0s before the tv cant reproduce the picture
In other words
Its about line of sight between your antenna and the transmitter
A digital signal with equal frequency and power will travel much further in north dakota than the mountains of west virginia
They are trying to use old uhf tv frequencies to broadcast 5g cellular from telephone pole to houses
The uhf signal doesn't pass through buildings and houses as well as 4g and 3g
They can either mount antennas outside of houses or cut 3g and cband frequencies over to 5g
They dont want to mount antennas
What about "all things being equal" do you not understand? An analog signal will travel as far as a digital signal broadcast at the same power, the same height, from the same antenna, at the same location. You will get the same reception strength.
Yes, an analog signal AT A LOWER RECEPTION STRENGTH will probably get you a viewable (not clean) picture where a digital signal AT THE SAME RECEPTION STRENGTH won't. HOWEVER, while the image starts to degrade on analog, the digital image will still be pure.
My point is the reception strength doesn't change whether it's analog or digital. Whether you have ENOUGH strength to produce a digital picture is the variable. If you do, the picture is PERFECT. If you don't, it's not that you don't have a perfect picture (like in analog), you don't have a picture.
I guess you didn't see the fcc requests for more transmitting power after the digital conversion
Sam Gordon is correct. The frequency determines the signal strength at a given location. It doesn’t matter whether it is analog or digital since the carrier is what determines the strength of the signal.
However, there are two other points to consider. At the start of the digital transition many broadcasters changed their frequency from VHF to UHF. VHF frequencies travel farther than UHF frequencies. That is why some broadcasters requested an increase in power. The second point that was previously mentioned is the digital cliff. At lower signal strengths analog signals will show up with a snowy picture while digital signals will not show up at all.
Again, the actual signal strength does not depend on whether the broadcast is analog or digital but it does make a difference on whether your receiver can display it. Also different compression schemes such as ATSC 3.0 broadcasts can make a difference since error correction can improve a weak signal.
However, there are two other points to consider. At the start of the digital transition many broadcasters changed their frequency from VHF to UHF. VHF frequencies travel farther than UHF frequencies. That is why some broadcasters requested an increase in power. The second point that was previously mentioned is the digital cliff. At lower signal strengths analog signals will show up with a snowy picture while digital signals will not show up at all.
Again, the actual signal strength does not depend on whether the broadcast is analog or digital but it does make a difference on whether your receiver can display it. Also different compression schemes such as ATSC 3.0 broadcasts can make a difference since error correction can improve a weak signal.
I guess all those old analog channels in the VHF range really didn't have to relocate to UHF
They should have just been happy with digital range that was 1/2 the size of the analog range
The FCC had no business switching everybody from the lower VHF to UHF
It really made no difference
A signal is just a signal
You wanted to know why TV stations have changed their frequencies. For the latest repack which reduced the UHF spectrum TV broadcasters had to make a decision whether they wanted to sell their old frequency. The earlier repack was mandated by the FCC.
The latest Spectrum Repack occurred where the FCC held 2 auctions. Yes, 2 auctions so that they could get the spectrum back from the television broadcasters. You see, one auction was to regain the spectrum from the broadcaster and the other was to unload the spectrum to the carriers. All of this in the 600MHz band.
- The broadcasters were in a reverse auction where they could request money from the FCC and get paid based on their market for their spectrum. They would also get new spectrum. So, they get paid to unload their spectrum.
- Then another auction for the carriers to buy the spectrum in the 600MHz band. This gives them the opportunity to gain more spectrum and grow for a few billion dollars. The big winner in this auction was T-Mobile, who intends to fill their holes across the US. They spent quite a bit. However, AT&T bought very little, and Verizon showed little interest. T-Mobile did very well. Comcast snatched up some spectrum too, among many others.
Here is another article regarding the repack.
A key part of the FCC’s efforts to meet the demand for spectrum is the first-of-its-kind Incentive Auction, a means of repurposing spectrum by encouraging TV licensees to voluntarily relinquish usage rights through a Reverse Auction, in exchange for a share of the proceeds from a Forward Auction to winning licensees of the repurposed spectrum.
1. FCC issues Channel Reassignment Public Notice that: • Announces the list of stations that won bids to relinquish their spectrum. • Provides the new channel assignments for stations that won bids to move from high-VHF to low-VHF or from UHF to high-VHF or low-VHF. • Provides the new channel assignments for remaining UHF stations. • Starts the 39-month transition period.
2. Repacked stations have three months from the date of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice to: • Submit construction permit applications (FCC Form 301) for the facilities on their new channel. • Submit estimated costs of construction of facilities on their new channel (FCC Form 399).
3. Following the submission deadline for estimated costs, FCC will make an initial allocation to each repacked broadcaster of up to 80% of its estimated costs (up to 90% for non-commercial stations).
4. Following the submission deadline for construction permit applications, FCC will assign an individual deadline for each repacked station to complete construction.
5. Once a repacked station begins to incur costs, it may submit a request for reimbursement along with cost documentation (such as a copy of a vendor invoice) via FCC Form 399 electronically using the FCC’s License and Management System (LMS).
6. As they are approved, payments will be made to the bank account designated by each repacked station to receive payments from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund
Look back earlier to the digital transition
Thats when many VHF channels became UHF channels
Despite the fact that your tv might say its channel 2..its probably on a UHF channel
We all know UHF coverage is not as good as VHF
And thats why some digital channels have less OTA coverage than theirvold VHF analig
