Could some channels be going to low VHF after the signal auction?

Discussion in 'Over the Air TV By RabbitEars.Info' started by miguelaqui, Jan 16, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. A few years ago, I spoke to a guy in engineering at one of the stations I currently receive on UHF. He said that, when he installed antennas for people, he always recommended the full VHF combo. I asked him why in the world he would have done that when mostly all channels were on UHF? He said that he cold not get into details about what he had been told by his boss, however, most channels that were once VHF had kept their VHF broadcasting antennae, just in case the FCC were to sell some of the UHF frequencies, making the UHF channels go back to VHF. He also explained that, although the signal was not better on VHF, due to terrestrial interference, that they could broadcast further for the money because they were paying $3,000 per month to the electric company for putting out the signal that they were broadcasting.

    He also told me that his station sent their signal directly to most of the cable providers in the area via fiber, just incase the tower were to go down. This statement made me think that it was just in case they decided to quit broadcasting all together.

    Is this what is coming up? Are channels going to sell their UHF frequencies to wireless providers and either stop over the air broadcasting all together or maybe move to a VHF channel, just to say that they are still broadcasting, but not as many will be able to receive their signal?
     
    localclassictvfan likes this.
  2. *** WELCOME TO SATELLITEGUYS! ***
  3. It's a fact that the lower frequencies tend to travel farther and are less likely to get interference.

    It's all a matter of advertising dollars.

    You can show you have a larger footprint using VHF, so therefore have a larger viewer base, which means more advertising revenue.

    The question is does the higher advertising rates pay for the cost of upgrading to a VHF transmitter and possibly the cost of a license?

    Speaking of that, OTA is pretty much dead anyways as most people get their signal from the cable or satellite providers directly.

    If there was not some benefit from keeping the signal OTA, the broadcasters would have shut down there signals years ago and gone strictly to fiber back hauls to the cable companies
     
    navychop likes this.
  4. If you ever watched analog off-air, you will remember that someone mixing a cake or tilling their yard would put white specs through low VHF. I can remember that 2 and 4 would even get popping noises in the audio when the white specs came in. I even remember channels 7 and 10 getting that way at times. However, UHF would tend not to do so.
     
  5. Hope not, most of my lower/higher numbered channels are UHF.....KATC 3 is 28, KALB 5 is 35......I have the vhf yagi pointed toward the west to get KPLC 7which transmitter tower is 44 miles from me. KLFY 10's tower is staring me in the face so as for the yagi I only use them for two stations.....HOWEVER the rest of the channels including KATC and KALB who's channels are in the UHF range now, well KATC's is right next to KLFY 10 so regardless I'm good there but I might have trouble catching KALB 5 in Alexandria if this would happen because I wont be able to get it with the vhf pointed at 283 degrees (KPLC). Now if I can somehow get the vhf's to work on the 8 bay UHF (which 3 and 10 yes) then I am good.....I don't really wanna load up another vhf antenna on a pole with a vhf/uhf already....
     
  6. VHF High? Probably (have 2 here in Minneapolis)
    VHF Low? Hope not

    VHF Low is susceptible to interference where VHF High isnt as bad.
     
  7. 2nd post ;)
    problem solved
     
    localclassictvfan likes this.
  8. Seems to me it'd make more sense to do what some other countries did: Give the lower VHF band to cell phone use. Keep the UHF for TV.
     
    localclassictvfan likes this.
  9. Mandate fiber to all homes and then you can take away my OTA.

    What's that, you say? It would cost trillions of dollars to do that? We can't put fiber to the farms and country with homes spaced miles apart?

    OTA TV works. It serves a purpose. If I can get Local TV over a cellular connection for free, great, but something tells me that time is years in the future.

    (Don't get me wrong, fiber to everyone would be awesome! But it won't happen anytime soon, either...)
     
  10. In the incentive auctions, stations can, indeed, opt to receive money in exchange for moving to VHF. So yes, it could be coming. Of course, in our general area, WBRA on 3 gives good reason for the full-size antenna even now.

    No country did that. The antennas at low-VHF are too large for cell phones.

    - Trip
     
    ejb1980 likes this.
  11. Though most people do get local channels from cable or satellite providers, the percentage of households using OTA has actually been going up steadily over the last few years, while households using cable or satellite have steadily been going down (mostly on the cable side, though).

    http://www.tvb.org/research/184839/4729/72512
     
    danristheman likes this.
  12. Back at the start of DTV transmission WBBM-DT in Chicago was assigned channel 3. What a mess that was, it caused issues with folks close to the transmitter and their cable boxes that were tuned to channel 3. Farther away leakage from cable systems caused problems with folks trying to receive it OTA. They ended up having to lower their transmitter power so low that only a few miles radius from the tower could receive them.
     
  13. I would have just told the cable company to change the outputs of their converters. Unless they were old, they should have been able to have done it easily.
     
  14. We're talking back around 2000 and the boxes only had channel 3 outputs on them.
     
  15. I remember reading that vividly and all the issues
    If I remember, WKYC Cleveland (PSIP 3) was on RF2 a year or so before the transition (they use UHF now)
     
  16. Would you want to be told that you had to send trucks out to change the channel on several million cable boxes?

    - Trip
     
  17. Trucks? No, just change it via software. I remember that GI and PIO boxes could be changed from the office. Well, for those addressable converters..they could be easily changed.
     
  18. Did that kind of thing exist in 2000? And then you would still need to roll the trucks to help people change their TV sets to channel 4.

    - Trip
     
  19. We have one vhf low and one vhf high here. Channel 2 is broadcast from the middle of the city so it's probably the most reliable channel. They're also on 2 uhf subchannels to cover the edges of the valley.
     
  20. What you think of a stacker antenna...
     
  21. Here in Chattanooga, local channel 3 is on cable 4, 9 is on 10 and 12 is on 13 due to interference on the local cable system
     
SatelliteGuys.US
Other Television Providers Over the Air TV By RabbitEars.Info