Digital over the air TV

Which frequencies do the DTV "channels" correspond to?



"Richard Harison" wrote in message
...
"Alpha One" wrote in message
...
Do I need a special antena to pick up over the air Digital TV or the old
one I have to pick up regular TV signals is enough?

Tony

Many stations are switching to UHF for their digital broadcasts.
If your antenna does not support UHF, then you will need to change.
There is no such thing as a *digital* antenna. Transmission frequency is
the determining factor. There are threads in this group already posted
about this issue

--
All the Best,
Richard Harison

On Jun 6, 9:35 pm, "Apropos"
wrote:
Which frequencies do the DTV "channels" correspond to?

"Richard Harison" wrote in message

...

"Alpha One" wrote in message
...
Do I need a special antena to pick up over the air Digital TV or the old
one I have to pick up regular TV signals is enough?

Tony

Many stations are switching to UHF for their digital broadcasts.
If your antenna does not support UHF, then you will need to change.
There is no such thing as a *digital* antenna. Transmission frequency is
the determining factor. There are threads in this group already posted
about this issue

--
All the Best,
Richard Harison

The NAB table here shows the channel numbers by market. The 2nd last
column is the NTSC std def channel and the last column is the DTV
channel for that station.

http://www.nab.org/AM/ASPCode/DTVSta...TVStations.asp

The actual frequencies are here

http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/catvfreq.html

GG

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 08:20:08 -0600 bearman wrote:
|
| "Alpha One" wrote in message
| ...
| Do I need a special antena to pick up over the air Digital TV or the old
| one I have to pick up regular TV signals is enough?
|
| Tony
|
| If it was good enough for regular TV signals, it's good enough for digital
| TV since they both use the same RF bands.

Individual stations may be switching. Most from VHF to UHF. A small few
the other way around. In Pittsburgh, all but the PBS station are going to
UHF.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

G-squared wrote:
On Jun 6, 2:05 pm, Alan F wrote:
snip
No, there are currently around 46 full power stations tentatively
assigned to low VHF 2 to 6 after the analog shutdown. The final
assignments for the low VHF stations have not been made as the FCC had
an open window for some of them to choose a upper VHF or UHF channel if
they can find one available. Perhaps the most prominent low VHF station
will be WPVI-DT ABC 6 in Philadelphia who has not asked for alternate
channel, but has instead asked for more digital broadcast power for
their post shutdown DTV 6 signal. BTW, WBBM-DT CBS 2 in Chicago,
currently stuck on VHF 3 and currently assigned post shutdown to a
crowded VHF 11 channel has asked to move to VHF 12 instead for better
coverage.

So low VHF will not be very crowded after 2009 for full power
stations, but they will be some. There are also some low power stations
that are opting for low VHF presumably for the lower transmitter power,
so they can save money on the electric bill.

Alan F

Have there been any reports on ATSC performance on low band VHF ?
Seems to me the impulse noise would cause problems and the receive
antenna requirements would be just plain nasty. I used to be part of
the crew at a channel 3 and getting the transmitter aligned for phase
response, frequency response, power and efficiency was difficult. OK,
you can run lower power on low band VHF but it seems a poor trade-off
to me.

Worst case in LA will be KABC on channel 7 but I'm not expecting much
trouble.

GG

I'm sure there are a number of studies and test reports for ATSC on
low band VHF, but I don't have links to them. A search with the right
terms may turn some up. WBBM-DT CBS 2 on VHF 3 in Chicago may be the
poster child for poor low band VHF ATSC performance.

Alan F

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:37:56 GMT Alan F wrote:

| I'm sure there are a number of studies and test reports for ATSC on
| low band VHF, but I don't have links to them. A search with the right
| terms may turn some up. WBBM-DT CBS 2 on VHF 3 in Chicago may be the
| poster child for poor low band VHF ATSC performance.

I wonder how many stations that will be transmitting on VHF after 2007-2-17
will at some later point in time apply for CP to switch to UHF.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Jun 7, 7:43 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:37:56 GMT Alan F wrote:

| I'm sure there are a number of studies and test reports for ATSC on
| low band VHF, but I don't have links to them. A search with the right
| terms may turn some up. WBBM-DT CBS 2 on VHF 3 in Chicago may be the
| poster child for poor low band VHF ATSC performance.

I wonder how many stations that will be transmitting on VHF after
2007-2-17
will at some later point in time apply for CP to switch to UHF.


You really think a station want to drop _another_ million buck to get
a new transmiter and antenna a year or 2 later? I should think they
want their ducks in a row now.

I think the high band VHF will be OK and likely to stay there. Low-
band VHF for 8VSB seems to me to be a poor choice.

GG

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:04:23 -0700 G-squared wrote:
| On Jun 7, 7:43 pm, wrote:
| On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:37:56 GMT Alan F wrote:
|
| | I'm sure there are a number of studies and test reports for ATSC on
| | low band VHF, but I don't have links to them. A search with the right
| | terms may turn some up. WBBM-DT CBS 2 on VHF 3 in Chicago may be the
| | poster child for poor low band VHF ATSC performance.
|
| I wonder how many stations that will be transmitting on VHF after
| 2007-2-17
| will at some later point in time apply for CP to switch to UHF.
|
|
| You really think a station want to drop _another_ million buck to get
| a new transmiter and antenna a year or 2 later? I should think they
| want their ducks in a row now.
|
| I think the high band VHF will be OK and likely to stay there. Low-
| band VHF for 8VSB seems to me to be a poor choice.

But some are going with lo band VHF, including a station with a rather
interesting call sign: WDTV (analog on 5, digital on 6)

Will they end up regretting these decisions?

In Pittsburgh, everyone is going to UHF except WQED is staying on 13.
Fortunately, many UHF antennas (well, at least the 8-bay bow-tie I was
looking at getting) apparently do an adequate job on the upper half of
the VHF high band. They may not have an issue.

At some point after 2007-02-17, the FCC will need to let open the flood
gates of new applications that have been held back due to the transition.
I wonder how many of these _new_ applicants will see abandonded channels,
especially VHF ones, as an opportunity. For example, might someone be
able to license channels, 2, 4, or 11 in or near Pittsburgh?

ATSC/8VSB also apparently works OK for adjacent channel when the stations
are at equal power. For example channels 42 and 43 will be in use in
Pittsburgh (11 - 42, 53 - 43). Despite the fact that channels above 51
are being handed over to other use, there may be _more_ usable channel
space after the transition with digital than before with analog.

Personally, I'd like to see the VHF low band converted to other usage.
I think there's enough channel space in 7-51 to handle the need, given
that terrestrial TV is not much of a growth industry any more. Maybe
that spectrum could be used to transition the FM band to digital and
expand it as well.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On Jun 11, 8:07 pm, wrote:
snip
But some are going with lo band VHF, including a station with a rather
interesting call sign: WDTV (analog on 5, digital on 6)

Will they end up regretting these decisions?

In Pittsburgh, everyone is going to UHF except WQED is staying on 13.
Fortunately, many UHF antennas (well, at least the 8-bay bow-tie I was
looking at getting) apparently do an adequate job on the upper half of
the VHF high band. They may not have an issue.

At some point after 2007-02-17, the FCC will need to let open the flood
gates of new applications that have been held back due to the transition.
I wonder how many of these _new_ applicants will see abandonded channels,
especially VHF ones, as an opportunity. For example, might someone be
able to license channels, 2, 4, or 11 in or near Pittsburgh?

ATSC/8VSB also apparently works OK for adjacent channel when the stations
are at equal power. For example channels 42 and 43 will be in use in
Pittsburgh (11 - 42, 53 - 43). Despite the fact that channels above 51
are being handed over to other use, there may be _more_ usable channel
space after the transition with digital than before with analog.

Personally, I'd like to see the VHF low band converted to other usage.
I think there's enough channel space in 7-51 to handle the need, given
that terrestrial TV is not much of a growth industry any more. Maybe
that spectrum could be used to transition the FM band to digital and
expand it as well.


Have you ever watched a low-band VHF during a lightning storm? I
expect all that impulse noise would render it largely unusable. Power
tools can be disruptive as well in low VHF.

As for adjacent channel, in LA there are 2 groups of 3 at 41,42,43 and
59,60,61 and none of my gear has any problems with it. There are
several groups of 2 31,32 35,36 38,39 47,48 65,66. Again,
no problems. There is even an analog channel 40 tucked in those groups
of digitals and no problem with it either.

GG

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:55:53 -0700 G-squared wrote:
| On Jun 11, 8:07 pm, wrote:
| snip
| But some are going with lo band VHF, including a station with a rather
| interesting call sign: WDTV (analog on 5, digital on 6)
|
| Will they end up regretting these decisions?
|
| In Pittsburgh, everyone is going to UHF except WQED is staying on 13.
| Fortunately, many UHF antennas (well, at least the 8-bay bow-tie I was
| looking at getting) apparently do an adequate job on the upper half of
| the VHF high band. They may not have an issue.
|
| At some point after 2007-02-17, the FCC will need to let open the flood
| gates of new applications that have been held back due to the transition.
| I wonder how many of these _new_ applicants will see abandonded channels,
| especially VHF ones, as an opportunity. For example, might someone be
| able to license channels, 2, 4, or 11 in or near Pittsburgh?
|
| ATSC/8VSB also apparently works OK for adjacent channel when the stations
| are at equal power. For example channels 42 and 43 will be in use in
| Pittsburgh (11 - 42, 53 - 43). Despite the fact that channels above 51
| are being handed over to other use, there may be _more_ usable channel
| space after the transition with digital than before with analog.
|
| Personally, I'd like to see the VHF low band converted to other usage.
| I think there's enough channel space in 7-51 to handle the need, given
| that terrestrial TV is not much of a growth industry any more. Maybe
| that spectrum could be used to transition the FM band to digital and
| expand it as well.
|
|
| Have you ever watched a low-band VHF during a lightning storm? I
| expect all that impulse noise would render it largely unusable. Power
| tools can be disruptive as well in low VHF.

Oh yes ... I used to "track" storms by watching channel 2 and 3.


| As for adjacent channel, in LA there are 2 groups of 3 at 41,42,43 and
| 59,60,61 and none of my gear has any problems with it. There are
| several groups of 2 31,32 35,36 38,39 47,48 65,66. Again,
| no problems. There is even an analog channel 40 tucked in those groups
| of digitals and no problem with it either.

No reason they couldn't solidly fill the bands. Cable succeeds with analog
by keeping things reasonably balanced. It should be fine in digital even
with a substantial imbalance.

One issue I see if multi-channel must-carry does not become law is that some
people will want to receive over the air to get the extra channels. And some
of them will live in apartments. Given the law that does require landlords
to let them do that, in certain cases there may be motive for landlords to
bring back the apartment MATV systems, in digital form. What I wonder, if
they choose to do that, is if it will stay 8VSB based for minimal processing
or if they will go with QAM like cable does.

I prefer satellite over cable for the national channels, but locals do not
seem to be in HD on satellite, yet (that might be a huge chore). So that
could mean a lot of OTA will still go on.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

wrote:

I prefer satellite over cable for the national channels, but locals do
not seem to be in HD on satellite, yet (that might be a huge chore). So
that could mean a lot of OTA will still go on.

Actually, Directv covers about 70% of the country with local hd.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB