Rate your DTV converter

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

The only exceptions will be what are termed "low power" stations (I haven't bothered to find out exactly what it is that makes a station "low power", although the information is certainly out there if someone cares enough to look for it) which will remain where they are, transmitting in analog mode as they always have.

Correct so far.

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.

On 1/7/2009 10:20 PM Don Bruder spake thus:

That's what I gathered also. So what are they going to use those old VHF channels for, do you know?

I find it interesting that nobody seems to be commenting on one important aspect of this whole deal, which is that we, the people (you remember that phrase, right?), who own these bands as (formerly) public communications pathways, are being given a take-it-or-leave-it proposition where they might (or probably will) end up in private hands. This would have caused outrage maybe 20-30 years ago, and someone may have even demanded an FCC investigation, but at this point, all we can do is throw our hands in the air, roll over and play dead.

It's my understanding they will be used for wireless networking. One problem with 802.11 at 2.4GHz (which I currently use over longish distances [2-7 miles] here in rural Oregon) is that the signal won't go thru trees. VHF doesn't have that problem. VHF will also go thru most building walls.

The licenses for those VHF freqs should be transferred from TV to Internet Service Providers, especially in rural areas. It's almost always in private hands. Except for military, the US Govt doesn't do all that much broadcasting compared to civilian uses. Private hands? You mean like Amateur, or CB, or GPRS?

On 1/7/2009 10:58 PM Roland Latour spake thus:

You misunderstand; I mean the current "airways" (VHF band in this case) are public in the sense that they're public property (i.e., not privately-owned, administered by the FCC) and also subject to public oversight (well, at least nominally). You know, like that little thing called the First Amendment?

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).

Or to put it another way, I could buy a UHF (only) antenna, and would have a much smaller antenna on the roof. Right?

I could see having a smaller antenna as a benefit, because I could make my mast a few feet higher without having so much worry about high winds ripping it down. Of course I am not sure if another 6 or 8 feet of mast would make much difference.

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.

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

This entire conversion is a basic rip off of the public!

If the digital channels worked as good or better than the analog for nearly everyone then fine go ahead.

the trouble is the digital channels in far too many cases dont work as well.

call your congressmen and COMPLAIN BEFORE THE SHUT OFF!

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.

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---

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.

When

The space between channels 6 and 7 are being used for FM broadcasting (88 to 108 mc). These will not change and a VHF antenna would still be needed for these stations.

---MIKE---

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.

In theory, yes. In practice, probably not. In most cases, those combination antennas have been carefully tuned so that they perform well across all the bands they pick up. Altering them in any way *WILL* alter their capabilities. Every piece of metal within (depending on which reference you want to believe) 1-4 wavelengths of any element has to be accounted for in the tuning process. Depending on the exact design being used (the "Yagi" is probably the most familiar), changing number of pieces, size of any piece, or spatial relationship between any two pieces even slightly can have anything from very little effect to an "I can't freakin' believe it!" huge effect on the antenna's performance. Lop a chunk off any of them, and it's pretty likely that they'll go almost completely "out of tune" for whatever part you try to keep in service. It wouldn't be impossible to retune an antenna once the VHF section is chopped off, but chances are high that it would take so much time/effort/tinkering to do it that it simply wouldn't be worth bothering to make the attempt.

Yep.

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.

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.

There's been talk about that, but the main "target" was supposed to be "public safety" - AKA fire, cops, ambulance, etc.

The wireless networking concept is/was aimed at so-called "white spaces" between current TV channels - sort of "slipping it into the gaps"

VHF has its own set of problems for use in wireless networking. Yes, it'll give better "penetration", and all other things being equal, longer distances. But when you drop in frequency, you also drop in information-carrying capability - Current wireless, running in the 2.4 GHz range, has *LOTS* of "cargo space" available, so top speeds possible with it are much higher than what can be had from a signal in the VHF bands (which are *WAY* down the scale: 54-88MHz for "VHF-Lo" - channels

Shifting wireless down to the VHF bands will give slower, but further-reaching, wireless connections. For some folks, "some but slow" is one helluva lot better than "fast but nothing", but in general, most of the general public is stuck in a "gotta be faster Faster FASTER!!!!!!! to be any good" mindset, so I'm wondering if that idea is

And if you are interested, this is a reasonable explanation of what is happening:

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."

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.