| Author |
Message |
Jim Miller
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:28 am Post subject:
DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
I was under the impression that the frequencies currently described as VHF
and used by channels 2-13 would all be repurposed and all DTV channels would
be in what is considered the UHF bands. This would mean that only a UHF
antenna would ever be required for OTA DTV reception.
Is this correct?
Or will some DTV signals eventually occupy frequencies associated with
channels 2-13 requiring purchase of a VHF antenna for OTA reception?
tnx
jtm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bruce Tomlin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
In article <b4-dnYnw2a2eyvfenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Jim Miller" <jim@removethisjtmiller.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I was under the impression that the frequencies currently described as VHF
and used by channels 2-13 would all be repurposed and all DTV channels would
be in what is considered the UHF bands. This would mean that only a UHF
antenna would ever be required for OTA DTV reception.
Is this correct?
|
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew L. Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:01 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
Jim Miller wrote:
| Quote: | I was under the impression that the frequencies currently described as VHF
and used by channels 2-13 would all be repurposed and all DTV channels would
be in what is considered the UHF bands. This would mean that only a UHF
antenna would ever be required for OTA DTV reception.
Is this correct?
|
No.
| Quote: | Or will some DTV signals eventually occupy frequencies associated with
channels 2-13 requiring purchase of a VHF antenna for OTA reception?
|
The stations will be given the choice of keeping one of the two channels
they are currently using. I would think that most stations will choose
to get off the low VHF channels. High VHF may well survive the digital
transition.
Matthew
--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
afiggatt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:25 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
Jim Miller wrote:
| Quote: | I was under the impression that the frequencies currently described as VHF
and used by channels 2-13 would all be repurposed and all DTV channels would
be in what is considered the UHF bands. This would mean that only a UHF
antenna would ever be required for OTA DTV reception.
Is this correct?
Or will some DTV signals eventually occupy frequencies associated with
channels 2-13 requiring purchase of a VHF antenna for OTA reception?
tnx
jtm
|
No, the digital channels will include VHF 2-13 and UHF 14-51.
Most stations currently in the upper VHF range, channels 7 to 13, are
expected to switch their digital broadcasts back to their VHF channels
once the analog shutdown occurs. However, the low VHF 2 to 6 channels
don't work very well for digital, so most stations at channels 2 to 6,
are likely to stay with a digital UHF channel. The public will still see
the old VHF channel number displayed for the station on their TV or
receiver box, I guess in theory, forever.
You may find that your UHF antenna works ok for the upper VHF channels
7 to 13 which cover 174 to 216 MHz. UHF channel 14 starts at 470 MHz.
The low VHF channels 2 to 6 cover 52 to 88 Mhz which require the longer
antenna poles to pick up.
I tested my Channel Master 4221 4 bowtie UHF antenna for the local
analog VHF channels. Got good reception for channels 7 to 13, dismal
for channels 2 to 6 (2,4,5 being the local analog channels). So I
figure my antenna will be ok for the analog shutdown - if it indeed
happens in early 2009 - as none of the local network stations have
indicated that they will use the VHF 2 to 6 frequencies.
If few stations use the VHF 2 to 6 channels, it is possible that they
may someday be taken back by the FCC and auctioned off for other
purposes. But there are no plans to do this that I have read about.
Alan F |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:28:26 -0500, "Jim Miller"
<jim@removethisjtmiller.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I was under the impression that the frequencies currently described as VHF
and used by channels 2-13 would all be repurposed and all DTV channels would
be in what is considered the UHF bands. This would mean that only a UHF
antenna would ever be required for OTA DTV reception.
Is this correct?
I saw the earlier response where Matthew said "No." However, I'm of |
the same opinion as you in regards 2-13 being, in so many words, "sold
off" and DTV being put (or kept) in what is now known as the UHF area.
If this is indeed the sase, the I see no reason WHY existing UHF
antennas won't work O.K. for DTV just so long as the definition of
what WAS the UHF band, and will be now, remains the same. While it is
certainly true that a DTV signal occupies more bandwidth than an
analog UHF signal, existing UHF antennas are designed to cover the
entire existing UHF band, and, unless the "new" UHF band is made wider
than the "old" one, it doesn't matter if individual channels within
that band are wider. IMHO anyway. <g> Shall we bet a pitcher of beer
and a pizza on this?
To go along with the above, here is a listing of existing stations,
and their analog channels, along with their assigned "simulcast" UHF
digital channels, in the Los Angeles / Orange County area of So. CA.
STATION / Analog CH / DTV CH
KCBS 2 60
KNBC 4 36
KABC 7 53
our two PBS stations are
KCET 28 59
KOCE 58 48
| Quote: | Or will some DTV signals eventually occupy frequencies associated with
channels 2-13 requiring purchase of a VHF antenna for OTA reception?
|
I think its for certain that there will be NO furthur TV transmission
in the Ch 2 to 13 area.
Jim
http://www.MicrowaveSoftware.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:39 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:25:04 -0500, Alan F wrote:
| Quote: | If few stations use the VHF 2 to 6 channels, it is possible that they
may someday be taken back by the FCC and auctioned off for other
purposes. But there are no plans to do this that I have read about.
Alan F
|
While I cannot say with certainty that you are mistaken on this point,
I suspect you are, and here is why I think that:
I believe standard analog channels are spaced about 6 MHz in the VHF
area. The 6 MHz includes AM video, FM sound, PLUS a "guardband" on
either side. I believe the actual bandwidth used is about 4.5 MHz max
for the video and audio. If I'm right on the 6 MHz current bandwidth,
than Channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 take up 5 X 6 = 30 MHz. Its my
furthur impression that HD digital channels are much wider than
analog, they have to be to get the much higher resolution. Given this
it would seem that there would be room only for 1 or 2 HD channels in
the 30 MHz space. Am I wrong on this Alan?
Jim (the 2nd Jim) <g> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greywolf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:17 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
"Jim Miller" <jim@removethisjtmiller.com> wrote in message
news:b4-dnYnw2a2eyvfenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast.com...
| Quote: | I was under the impression that the frequencies currently described as VHF
and used by channels 2-13 would all be repurposed and all DTV channels
would
be in what is considered the UHF bands. This would mean that only a UHF
antenna would ever be required for OTA DTV reception.
Is this correct?
Or will some DTV signals eventually occupy frequencies associated with
channels 2-13 requiring purchase of a VHF antenna for OTA reception?
tnx
jtm
The post transition channels available will be 2-51. All but a few channels |
nationwide have chosen 7-51.
Pat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dennis Mayer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:37 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
Jim wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:25:04 -0500, Alan F wrote:
If few stations use the VHF 2 to 6 channels, it is possible that they
may someday be taken back by the FCC and auctioned off for other
purposes. But there are no plans to do this that I have read about.
Alan F
While I cannot say with certainty that you are mistaken on this point,
I suspect you are, and here is why I think that:
I believe standard analog channels are spaced about 6 MHz in the VHF
area. The 6 MHz includes AM video, FM sound, PLUS a "guardband" on
either side. I believe the actual bandwidth used is about 4.5 MHz max
for the video and audio. If I'm right on the 6 MHz current bandwidth,
than Channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 take up 5 X 6 = 30 MHz. Its my
furthur impression that HD digital channels are much wider than
analog, they have to be to get the much higher resolution.
|
Not correct... A current analog TV channel requires
very near the same amount of bandwidth as a Current Digital
HD Channel ... If the HD digital channel is slightly
compressed, then a HD dig Prgm + a SD digital Prgm =
the Full Analog Bandwidth.....
Given this
| Quote: | it would seem that there would be room only for 1 or 2 HD channels in
the 30 MHz space. Am I wrong on this Alan?
|
Ya, kinda wrong....
| Quote: |
Jim (the 2nd Jim) <g |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:37 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:39:39 -0800, Jim <mwsoft@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:25:04 -0500, Alan F wrote:
If few stations use the VHF 2 to 6 channels, it is possible that they
may someday be taken back by the FCC and auctioned off for other
purposes. But there are no plans to do this that I have read about.
Alan F
While I cannot say with certainty that you are mistaken on this point,
I suspect you are, and here is why I think that:
I believe standard analog channels are spaced about 6 MHz in the VHF
area. The 6 MHz includes AM video, FM sound, PLUS a "guardband" on
either side. I believe the actual bandwidth used is about 4.5 MHz max
for the video and audio. If I'm right on the 6 MHz current bandwidth,
than Channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 take up 5 X 6 = 30 MHz. Its my
furthur impression that HD digital channels are much wider than
analog, they have to be to get the much higher resolution. Given this
it would seem that there would be room only for 1 or 2 HD channels in
the 30 MHz space. Am I wrong on this Alan?
Jim (the 2nd Jim) <g
|
The frequency allocations for TV broadcasting remain the same.
Digital broadcast signals must fit in a 6MHz bandwidth allocation.
Compression of digital signals makes this possible. All digital
television receivers have decompression firmware. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
afiggatt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:33 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
Jim wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:25:04 -0500, Alan F wrote:
If few stations use the VHF 2 to 6 channels, it is possible that they
may someday be taken back by the FCC and auctioned off for other
purposes. But there are no plans to do this that I have read about.
Alan F
While I cannot say with certainty that you are mistaken on this point,
I suspect you are, and here is why I think that:
I believe standard analog channels are spaced about 6 MHz in the VHF
area. The 6 MHz includes AM video, FM sound, PLUS a "guardband" on
either side. I believe the actual bandwidth used is about 4.5 MHz max
for the video and audio. If I'm right on the 6 MHz current bandwidth,
than Channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 take up 5 X 6 = 30 MHz. Its my
furthur impression that HD digital channels are much wider than
analog, they have to be to get the much higher resolution. Given this
it would seem that there would be room only for 1 or 2 HD channels in
the 30 MHz space. Am I wrong on this Alan?
Jim (the 2nd Jim) <g
|
As already stated, you are wrong. The digital channels go into the
same 6 Mhz space as the analog channels. This is accomplished via the
magic of MPEG-2 compression. Fitting the digital HD signal into the
existing 6 MHz broadcast bandwidth was the key criteria in selecting the
resolutions and frame rates that they came up with in the ATSC standard.
Do a google search for ATSC development history. It was a long and
tortured path to selecting HD and digital OTA broadcast standards.
The frequency allocations for VHF 7 to 13 are pretty safe. Many
stations have declared their intent to broadcast at those frequencies.
Given that we still don't have a solid transition date for turning off
the analog NTSC broadcast, I doubt if the FCC has even seriously
considered - outside of informal technical staff discussions - if they
should take away VHF 2-6 from the TV stations. May happen someday, but
the low VHF frequencies are not as valuable at this point as the 700 to
800 MHz UHF band the government wants to auction off for commercial use
and for emergency services digital communications.
Alan F |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
| Quote: | The stations will be given the choice of keeping one of the two channels
they are currently using.
|
Not quite. Stations can elect to keep either one as their digital and
have the frequency reserved, or they can choose to wait and see what is
left after other stations select.
One Baltimore station did just this, because their analog 2 really does
require too big an antenna, and their digital 52 isn't allowed for
permanent selection.
The choice pattern from Baltimore and Washington is:
IF one number is high VHF THEN
keep that one
ELSE
IF one number is low VHF THEN
keep the other one
ELSE
keep the lowest legal UHF number
ENDIF
ENDIF
Most of the country has done this, from what I have read.
--
Jeff Rife | "Eternity with nerds. It's the Pasadena Star
| Trek convention all over again."
|
| -- Nichelle Nichols, "Futurama" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
afiggatt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
Jim wrote:
| Quote: | While I cannot say with certainty that you are mistaken on this point,
I suspect you are, and here is why I think that:
I believe standard analog channels are spaced about 6 MHz in the VHF
area. The 6 MHz includes AM video, FM sound, PLUS a "guardband" on
either side. I believe the actual bandwidth used is about 4.5 MHz max
for the video and audio. If I'm right on the 6 MHz current bandwidth,
than Channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 take up 5 X 6 = 30 MHz. Its my
furthur impression that HD digital channels are much wider than
analog, they have to be to get the much higher resolution. Given this
it would seem that there would be room only for 1 or 2 HD channels in
the 30 MHz space. Am I wrong on this Alan?
Jim (the 2nd Jim) <g
As already stated, you are wrong. The digital channels go into the
same 6 Mhz space as the analog channels. This is accomplished via the
magic of MPEG-2 compression. Fitting the digital HD signal into the
existing 6 MHz broadcast bandwidth was the key criteria in selecting the
resolutions and frame rates that they came up with in the ATSC standard.
Do a google search for ATSC development history. It was a long and
tortured path to selecting HD and digital OTA broadcast standards.
The frequency allocations for VHF 7 to 13 are pretty safe. Many
stations have declared their intent to broadcast at those frequencies.
Given that we still don't have a solid transition date for turning off
the analog NTSC broadcast, I doubt if the FCC has even seriously
considered - outside of informal technical staff discussions - if they
should take away VHF 2-6 from the TV stations. May happen someday, but
the low VHF frequencies are not as valuable at this point as the 700 to
800 MHz UHF band the government wants to auction off for commercial use
and for emergency services digital communications.
Alan F
Alan + others...
Thank you for contributing to my education on the HD bandwidth issue.
I was unaware of the fact that compression is used. That would make a
BIG difference. That one fact makes HD all the better - its like
getting something for nothing. Same BW but much better pic quality!
Geez, ain't science wonderful?
Now, I read somewhere, and guess I can find it again if I do another
Google search. What is the typical BW of an HD signal BEFORE
compression? Is it QAM? and Is it up in the 20 to 30 MHz area?
Jim
|
Do you even watch HD? The amount of compression is critical to the
picture quality. There are endless complaints about the HD picture
quality for DirecTV because they re-compress the picture to make it fit
into a narrower bandwidth; HDLite is the derogatory term people use for
it. Local broadcast stations can lower HD picture quality by compressing
the HD signal on their n.1 sub channel to make room for several SD
subchannels at n.2, n.3. If you are not even aware that digital
broadcasting uses MPEG-2 compression, you need to read up on it before
posting responses on HD to the usenet.
IIRC, one of the proposals back in the day for analog HD and early
digital designs was to use 12 MHz of broadcast bandwidth - which was a
marginal fit at that. But that never really got anywhere as the biggest
motivation for switching to digital TV ended up being to free up a big
and valuable chunk of the EM spectrum for other purposes. By going to
8-VSB, ATSC, and MPEG-2 compression, they were to design a broadcast
system that would allow tighter packing of broadcast stations and allow
them to eventually take away channels 52 to 69 from the broadcasters.
Try www.atsc.org and www.dtv.gov as starting points, but there is a lot
of fluff for the public on those sites.
Alan F |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Rife
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
Jim (mwsoft@cox.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
| Quote: | Now, I read somewhere, and guess I can find it again if I do another
Google search. What is the typical BW of an HD signal BEFORE
compression?
|
Well, there are several kinds of "compression" at work. Most of this comes
from the MPEG-2 compression of the bits, but 8VSB uses a signaling system
that allows more than one bit per transition.
Actual raw bandwidth for an uncompressed 1080i signal is around 1300 megabits
per second, which would be 1300MHz in a naive system (no error correction,
etc.). Using 8VSB and error correction, but no MPEG compression, you'd need
upwards of 300MHz for the raw HD signal. Someone can correct my guesstimate
math, but suffice to say the number is easily one order of magnitude more
bandwidth (60MHz), and likely 50 times as much, but not two orders of
magnitude (600MHz).
--
Jeff Rife |
| "He chose...poorly."
|
| -- Grail Knight, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:33:14 -0500, afiggatt <afiggatt@adelphia.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Jim wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:25:04 -0500, Alan F wrote:
If few stations use the VHF 2 to 6 channels, it is possible that they
may someday be taken back by the FCC and auctioned off for other
purposes. But there are no plans to do this that I have read about.
Alan F
While I cannot say with certainty that you are mistaken on this point,
I suspect you are, and here is why I think that:
I believe standard analog channels are spaced about 6 MHz in the VHF
area. The 6 MHz includes AM video, FM sound, PLUS a "guardband" on
either side. I believe the actual bandwidth used is about 4.5 MHz max
for the video and audio. If I'm right on the 6 MHz current bandwidth,
than Channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 take up 5 X 6 = 30 MHz. Its my
furthur impression that HD digital channels are much wider than
analog, they have to be to get the much higher resolution. Given this
it would seem that there would be room only for 1 or 2 HD channels in
the 30 MHz space. Am I wrong on this Alan?
Jim (the 2nd Jim) <g
As already stated, you are wrong. The digital channels go into the
same 6 Mhz space as the analog channels. This is accomplished via the
magic of MPEG-2 compression. Fitting the digital HD signal into the
existing 6 MHz broadcast bandwidth was the key criteria in selecting the
resolutions and frame rates that they came up with in the ATSC standard.
Do a google search for ATSC development history. It was a long and
tortured path to selecting HD and digital OTA broadcast standards.
The frequency allocations for VHF 7 to 13 are pretty safe. Many
stations have declared their intent to broadcast at those frequencies.
Given that we still don't have a solid transition date for turning off
the analog NTSC broadcast, I doubt if the FCC has even seriously
considered - outside of informal technical staff discussions - if they
should take away VHF 2-6 from the TV stations. May happen someday, but
the low VHF frequencies are not as valuable at this point as the 700 to
800 MHz UHF band the government wants to auction off for commercial use
and for emergency services digital communications.
Alan F
|
Alan + others...
Thank you for contributing to my education on the HD bandwidth issue.
I was unaware of the fact that compression is used. That would make a
BIG difference. That one fact makes HD all the better - its like
getting something for nothing. Same BW but much better pic quality!
Geez, ain't science wonderful?
Now, I read somewhere, and guess I can find it again if I do another
Google search. What is the typical BW of an HD signal BEFORE
compression? Is it QAM? and Is it up in the 20 to 30 MHz area?
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Tomlin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject:
Re: DTV Frequencies eventually all "UHF"? |
|
|
In article <2orkm1d57rovt4e53t1hfaqaernri4lub5@4ax.com>,
Jim <mwsoft@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:28:26 -0500, "Jim Miller"
jim@removethisjtmiller.com> wrote:
I was under the impression that the frequencies currently described as VHF
and used by channels 2-13 would all be repurposed and all DTV channels would
be in what is considered the UHF bands. This would mean that only a UHF
antenna would ever be required for OTA DTV reception.
Is this correct?
I saw the earlier response where Matthew said "No." However, I'm of
the same opinion as you in regards 2-13 being, in so many words, "sold
off" and DTV being put (or kept) in what is now known as the UHF area.
If this is indeed the sase, the I see no reason WHY existing UHF
antennas won't work O.K. for DTV just so long as the definition of
what WAS the UHF band, and will be now, remains the same. While it is
certainly true that a DTV signal occupies more bandwidth than an
analog UHF signal, existing UHF antennas are designed to cover the
entire existing UHF band, and, unless the "new" UHF band is made wider
than the "old" one, it doesn't matter if individual channels within
that band are wider. IMHO anyway. <g> Shall we bet a pitcher of beer
and a pizza on this?
To go along with the above, here is a listing of existing stations,
and their analog channels, along with their assigned "simulcast" UHF
digital channels, in the Los Angeles / Orange County area of So. CA.
STATION / Analog CH / DTV CH
KCBS 2 60
KNBC 4 36
KABC 7 53
our two PBS stations are
KCET 28 59
KOCE 58 48
Or will some DTV signals eventually occupy frequencies associated with
channels 2-13 requiring purchase of a VHF antenna for OTA reception?
I think its for certain that there will be NO furthur TV transmission
in the Ch 2 to 13 area.
Jim
http://www.MicrowaveSoftware.com/
|
KLRN (San Antonio, TX PBS) analog 9, digital 8
KENS (San Antonio, TX CBS) analog 5, digital 55 (above the CH51 cutoff)
KAKW (Austin, TX UNI) analog 62, digital 13
KTBC (Austin, TX FOX) analog 7, digital 56 (also above the cutoff)
KLRN 8 has been a bit picky for rabbit-ears reception in my limited
experience, but it might be partly due to co-channel interference from
their analog 9; KAKW 13 has always been easy to receive, even at half
power (in the tens of kilowatts range, no less); and KENS 55 is forced
to run at low power (they don't want to) because of being in the Mexico
zone and because of the FCC sitting on a bunch of ATSC license
applications. KENS 55 also has a problem in fringe areas to the
northwest because of an analog translator operating on that frequency.
KTBC 7 analog has strong multipath interference where I live (15 or so
miles from the stick), and I would hope they go for a new channel
altogether.
The main reason you don't see much VHF ATSC right now is that VHF has
always been crowded, so there aren't many new allocations being made for
ATSC on VHF.
When they drop analog, stations will have a choice of whether to keep
their old frequency or their new frequency. 7-13 seem to be good for
ATSC broadcasting, and stations will likely keep those, but 2-6 may not
be so good. But I don't have any personal experience with 2-6 ATSC, so
I don't know for sure.
Meanwhile, there's a channel 2 (KBEJ, FOX) that's not really near either
San Antonio or Austin, but closer to and in the market of San Antonio,
that's sitting and waiting before getting an allocation. It's the only
non-LP station in the area without any digital transmitter. Given the
history of this station, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually plan
to do a direct switchover to digital on their existing channel 2. If
2-6 really are bad for ATSC, they will probably stay in denial about the
problems for some time. :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in