old question: why isn't there a Channel 1?

[ChrisW6ATV]

That makes sense in fact; I know in my NTSC-watching days (specifically, with indoor antennas), Channel 2 was always the worst-looking and hardest to receive clearly. Channels 4 and 5 were better but often not great, and Channels 7, 9, and 11 almost always were easy to receive well.

One of the nice side benefits to the switch to ATSC is that most stations moved to UHF. Now if they would only get rid of the silly fake "channel" numbers left over from the old days.

[Fritze-AR]

Originally Posted by ChrisW6ATV

That makes sense in fact; I know in my NTSC-watching days (specifically, with indoor antennas), Channel 2 was always the worst-looking and hardest to receive clearly. Channels 4 and 5 were better but often not great, and Channels 7, 9, and 11 almost always were easy to receive well.

One of the nice side benefits to the switch to ATSC is that most stations moved to UHF. Now if they would only get rid of the silly fake "channel" numbers left over from the old days.

I hear ya. The broadcasters did not want to "give up" their incumbent channel listings even though in some markets, they marketed (and still do) their primary cable channel listings. Plus there was the baggage of UHF being "inferior". PSIP remapping has IMHO caused more issues than solved by the silly remapping scheme.

[Jeffhs]

Most stations may have switched to UHF digital channels, but there are a few holdouts. For example, in my area, channels 3 (NBC) and 5 (ABC) are on UHF digital assignments but the DTV channel for CBS channel 19 in this area is actually VHF channel 10. Moreover, channel 8, the FOX affiliate here, is still on a VHF digital channel but will eventually move to, IIRC, channel 31, if I am to believe what I have been reading lately on Ohio Media Watch. Channel 19 has no plans that I am aware of to move its DTV assignment to UHF, although since this area is close to Lake Erie and a Canadian TV station on channel 10, the Cleveland station might well interfere with the latter, even though Canada's DTV transition is complete.

I am surprised channel 19 did not either stay on its original channel position (or else move to another UHF channel) after the transition. It would have made more sense for this station to have remained on 19, as did a station 60 miles south of here on channel 23. The latter, the ION television network affiliate for this area, was able to remain on 23 even after the DTV switch. I don't know how it is possible for a television station to switch from analog NTSC to ATSC digital while remaining on the same RF channel, but somehow 23 did it.

[old_tv_nut]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

I don't know how it is possible for a television station to switch from analog NTSC to ATSC digital while remaining on the same RF channel, but somehow 23 did it.

Technically it is very easy to change from analog to digital just by swapping exciters, although meeting the strict out-of-band radiation limits could prevent doing it that simply (some high-level filtering may be required). A few stations (mainly public broadcasting, I believe) requested and got permission to do a direct cut with no transition period of dual broadcasts. In one of the cases I read about, they determined that only 3% (IIRC) of their audience was using the over-the-air signal, since they were serving a large state-wide area rather than a single concentrated urban population.

[dewdude]

Here's how I remember the NTSC days....back when I still had a working antenna on the roof, living here 40 miles or so from DC.

"Local" channels 4 and 5 came in ok. 7 and 9 were always the easiest and clearest. The UHF performance was horrible. The only analog uhf channel I got was. 53...only because I lived 5 miles from the transmitter. In fact, at night, I can see its blinking red light just over the tree tops.

Baltimore channels were iffy. They were all fuzzy, but 2 came in better than 11 or 13, Baltimore UHFs were impossible.

Mind you, I live amongst trees, in a slight valley, without a very good antenna or rotor.

When things went ATSC, well..back when I had an OTA tuner, everything was UHF, and I couldn't get anything. I had better luck getting one or two locals in digital with an indoor antenna.

Lower frequencies travel "farther" due to the fact they follow the curve of the earth slightly...higher frequencies are more line of sight. Higher frequencies are less sensitive to interference as lower frequencies. In TV, this simply means a VHF signal is going to travel farther than UHF. UHF will have less interference than VHF...but more noise. UHF transmitters usually used quite a bit more power because of that.

The official switch to all digital....I honestly don't know why many stations stayed UHF. The virtual channels are simply because they can, and its what we all grew up with. Its like I'm used to refferring to WTTG as channel 5...not 35,36, whatever its on these days. I'm sure they mostly wanted to avoid confusion to people who, for the most part, grew up with those channel numbers.

[ChrisW6ATV]

Jeff-

Maybe that station went from NTSC channel 23 to "pretend" 23 (but actually on another UHF channel) when it was first in digital, especially if it kept its analog signal on the air until 2009 as most stations did. Then, when the NTSC was shut off, the digital signal could have been moved to true channel 23. Two of the stations here in the S.F. Bay Area did this, so their signals are now really on the numbers they use (channels 7 and 36).

[Jeffhs]

Originally Posted by ChrisW6ATV

Jeff-

Maybe that station went from NTSC channel 23 to "pretend" 23 (but actually on another UHF channel) when it was first in digital, especially if it kept its analog signal on the air until 2009 as most stations did. Then, when the NTSC was shut off, the digital signal could have been moved to true channel 23. Two of the stations here in the S.F. Bay Area did this, so their signals are now really on the numbers they use (channels 7 and 36).

Actually, Chris, the technical term for what channel 23 did is "flash cut" from analog to digital, remaining on the same RF channel, but I'm not very familiar with the technique. Digital TV technology is very new to me, since I learned everything I know today about TV in the '60s and '70s -- when NTSC analog TV was still the standard of choice for U. S. and Canadian telecasting. I am familiar with such things as streaming video over the Internet (I sometimes watch the national evening news online if I happen to miss it on TV), but I have a lot to learn about digital television. Fortunately, there is a wealth of information on that very subject right here at VK (and elsewhere on the Internet), so you can be sure I'll be reading everything I can get my hands on regarding DTV and related subjects. I enjoyed watching NTSC TV but times have changed, so it's time to upgrade my knowledge for the DTV era. I also enjoyed working on NTSC television sets, but since everything now is solid state, surface-mounted components and so forth, not to mention no more CRTs, it is time to move on. I'm still getting used to the idea, for example, of my flat-screen TV being devoid of a kilovolt-level high-voltage system, as was used in NTSC sets; I still expect to see the hairs on my arms stand up when I walk past my set when it is on. Again, I am very glad and thankful that there is so very much good information here on ATSC digital TV, and, thanks to VK moderator Tim (Kamakiri), even a separate forum (Flat Panels and Digital Formats) in which to discuss this new technology. That forum is an idea whose time has come, and which brings Videokarma into the 21st century.

[jr_tech]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

Actually, Chris, the technical term for what channel 23 did is "flash cut" from analog to digital, remaining on the same RF channel, but I'm not very familiar with the technique.

FCC records provide a glimpse as to how this was done (digital was on ch 59 before the transition):

SECTION II - CURRENT STATUS
1.
Currently Assigned Channels:
a. NTSC Channel: 23
b. Post-Transition DTV Channel: 23
c. Pre-Transition DTV Channel (if different from Post-Transition channel.) 59
2.
Relevant FCC File No. for Post-Transition Authorization, if on file with Commission (or indicate "Not Yet Filed"):
FCC File No. BPCDT- 20070625ACA Not Yet Filed
3.
Current Construction Deadline: 02/17/2009

From the WVPX "Transition Status Report" filed 10/21/08

jr

[raditechman]

From 1936 until about 1985 the London area (UK) was served by a BBC TV station on Channel 1, vision 45.00MHz, sound 41.50MHz. Several million people received that transmitter.
John

[David Roper]

I guess if you didn't live in the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century you wouldn't wonder about channel 1. For generations those of us who did knew nothing but sets with dials that started at 2 .

[W3XWT]

Channel 1 coverage could've been interesting if the Frequently Confused Commission had allowed 100KW visual 20KW aural at 1000' HAAT as they did so many low-band VHF TV's!

Also, the one station confirmed as operating on channel 1 never used the figure "1" in any of the material I've seen. They always put it as "Channel One".

Regarding Channel 1, there was talk at one time post-WWII to move TV to VHF-Hi and above. Channel 7 would've been the "new" channel 1. ABC-TV was supposedly so confident of that happening, that was supposedly why all their CP's were for channel 7! At least according to an ABC old timer I had talked with...

[electronjohn]

In the pre-TV 1930s, hams had a frequency allocation in that general neighborhood...the old "5 meter" band...just a few mHz up from the present 6 meter allocations. Channel One was probably the most interference-prone of the VHF lowband channels with spring & summer "skip" being a real problem. Channel 2 wasn't a whole heck of a lot better...I can recall growing up in Western MN and attempting to get Channel 2 out of Minneapolis on a "skippy" day and getting Winnipeg instead. Sadly, TV DX like that is pretty much history.

[Robert Grant]

Originally Posted by electronjohn

In the pre-TV 1930s, hams had a frequency allocation in that general neighborhood...the old "5 meter" band...just a few mHz up from the present 6 meter allocations. Channel One was probably the most interference-prone of the VHF lowband channels with spring & summer "skip" being a real problem. Channel 2 wasn't a whole heck of a lot better...I can recall growing up in Western MN and attempting to get Channel 2 out of Minneapolis on a "skippy" day and getting Winnipeg instead. Sadly, TV DX like that is pretty much history.

Winnipeg never had a channel 2, you were probably getting Vancouver! (Sporadic-E favors distances of about 1,000 miles).

TV DX by Es is still possible, though there are far fewer stations on channels 2 to 6 to DX (most lowband stations chose to spend their digital future on UHF or highband channels). The poor multipath tolerance of DTV also makes it more difficult for a DTV signal to be decoded when it is coming in by Es.

[Robert Grant]

Interesting to hear the different stories on this. First off, AFAIK, Channel 1 did not become the 6-meter amateur band. Channel 1 was 44-50 MC (not a typo - MC instead of MHz before 1966), Channel 2 54-60, and the 6-meter band was (and still is) 50-54 (MC or MHz). This allowed for Channel 1 to be used anywhere, even if there were a channel 2 in the area.

The plan was for Channel 1 to share the 44-50 MC spectrum with land mobile radio. They had thought that only in larger cities would there be a demand for mobile radio (that quickly turned out to be wrong as every rural VFD and county sheriff wanted it) and Channel 1 could be used for "local" TV stations in smaller cities and towns (much like the "graveyard" AM radio channels, 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450 and 1490).

The plan was doomed from the start, as mobile radio would cause too much interference, and it was found that television networks would not sign up affiliates in small towns that overlapped stronger big-city affiliates and O&Os as they had been allowing with radio.

[lnx64]

You know what's funny, I have a few modern TV's, even HDTVs, that have the ability to tune to channel 1.. Even my Panasonic VCR can do it.

Not sure why if nothing is going to be there.

I also once had a cable box that had a channel 1, which showed some PBS channel, but none of the TV's with channel 1 capabilities, showed anything on it without the box.