[opendtv] Re: Senators Support Funds to Fill DTV Gaps
- From: "Dale Kelly" <dalekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 13:09:03 -0700
Bert wrote:
> I take it, you're saying that the FCC's rules created this need.
Perhaps, but I think there are different ways of looking at this.<
I don't blame the FCC, they simply responded to political needs. They
do, after all work for the politicos.
The FCC was given the impossible job of stuffing ten pounds of RF
requirement into
a five pound container.
It was well know technically, from the beginning, that sufficient
channels were not available to replicate current analog channels,
especially after losing the top UHF tier. It was also well understood
that replication could not always be achieved at the allocated power
levels but the FCC had little choice given the available spectrum.
There was never any question that an increased number of digital
translators/repeaters
would be required. However, the fact that a new set of politicians
understands
that need and is willing to fund it is refreshing.
You and I are not in disagreement. However, I was there (at the FCC) during
the initial allocation discussions and have a slightly different
perspective.
Are you aware that the FCC originally calculated that many digital UHF
stations,
replacing many VHFs, would require up to 5MW ERP to replicate current
coverage?
After we convinced them of the physical and economic impractibility of
constructing
and operating such a high powered facility, they reduced the max UHF DTV
power to
the current 1MW level.
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:20 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Senators Support Funds to Fill DTV Gaps
Dale Kelly wrote:
> The chickens have come home to roost.
---------------------------
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/80070
Senators Support Funds to Fill DTV Gaps
04.28.2009
---------------------------
I take it, you're saying that the FCC's rules created this need.
Perhaps, but I think there are different ways of looking at this.
A broadcaster might take the position that lack of digital cliff meant
that he needed fewer towers to obtain the needed coverage. But to the
viewers, that often meant a less than ideal signal. Many used that as an
excuse to buy cable. Lousy OTA signal.
If instead the TV viewer gets reliable digital reception, he's getting a
signal that's usually better quality than any of the competing
distribution media. Even if it takes a translator tower to achieve this.
And, don't at least some on this list keep telling us that it's better
to have more closely spaced, low power towers, than earth scorchers?
Where I live, Tvfool claims that post-transition, reception should be
easier than it is for analog signals. Compared with analog, there is one
fewer station in the green zone, post-transition, but there are three
more channels in the green, yellow, and pink parts of the chart. And in
all cases, the signal strength for corresponding ease of reception,
accoding to them, is far lower for the digital signal. Most often, more
than 10 dB lower signal strength in digital than the corresponding
analog. No translator towers among these.
As a viewer, therefore, I'm glad that broadcasters will be given the
opportunity of adding translators as necessary.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: