Quote:
Originally Posted by ericha  VHF is actually better for propogation--channel 2 is the best. This is because for the same directionality, the antenna is bigger and intercepts more signal. What makes you think that VHF is worse? |
VHF reception is more susceptible to interference then UHF. The lower down in frequency you go the worse it becomes.
Channel 2 is the worst for reception. Band 1 stations often had very tall antenna's due to their long wave length, it allows them to use much less transmitter output.
It saves on the electric bill and standby generators, they are limited by the FCC to a maximum output of 45 kW digital 8vsb ERP.
Stations on band III can go up in power to 160KW.
Most countries abandoned the VHF and moved all reception up into the UHF.
If the United States would have done this, it would have required us to all use one type of antenna and one type of pre amp - just like in Great Britain today.
UHF is less susceptible to noise, be it ignition noise from gasoline engines, electric fences, power lines, motor brush noise, even electrical light switches inside your home will all interfere with your reception. In time, I look for either the FCC to take away all the VHF or limit the amount of licenses it sells in the VHF - due to all the problems it has.
Florida, which is at or even slightly below sea level and surrounded on 3 sides of by water was once a mecca for VHF reception. Now with digital, the customers complains in the summertime that they have too much reception and in the wintertime that they do not have enough reception. There is no happy medium.
You cannot judge the reception in one location to be the same as what it might be in another.
The test bed for digital television transmissions was I think down in Maryland.
Maryland was a very poor place to test television reception because of the lack of mountains and valleys. What worked great in Maryland did not work at all in Pennsylvania - just 100 - 200 miles away! The engineers all agreed with the 8 VSB - with no regard to other systems used other places in the world which would have served us better.
I belive that SECAM would have been a better choice. NTSC is not good enough for challenging terrain such as Pennsylvania with its high mountains and deep valleys and long distances between markets.