Clear TV indoor DTV antenna

[Jeffhs]

It is at times like this I wish the FCC hadn't done away with analog TV. At least with analog, most people within reasonable distances of the stations (even here in my area, which is 35 miles east of downtown Cleveland) could get some reception; with digital, it is all or nothing, and the antenna requirements are too strict, IMO. That is why I said in my post that I am stuck with cable, but I think I'm better off this way since I get more stations on cable (the two digital subchannels I cannot receive using my small Clear Cast DTV indoor antenna being the ones I watch the most, plus other entertainment networks like TBS, TNT, A&E, et al.) than I ever received with an OTA antenna, either here or where I used to live. The latter is an eastern suburb of Cleveland, about 16 miles from downtown, and has very good reception from all Cleveland TV stations. My current residence is located in a small town 35 miles from the downtown area of Cleveland, with the TV transmitters located probably 10-15 miles further southwest of the city in a western suburb. Despite this, I get amazingly good DTV reception here, using my Clear Cast DTV indoor antenna, from all but two stations -- the aforementioned channels 8 and 19. I'm almost certain the reason I cannot receive these two channels with an indoor antenna is because they both operate on VHF DTV channels; channel 8 on 8 and 19 on 10. My Clear Cast DTV indoor antenna is designed for UHF reception only, so it will not receive anything below the lower edge of whatever is left of the UHF TV spectrum. Channels 14 to 51 come to mind; in fact, I read online this afternoon that this is actually all that is in fact left of what was the UHF television spectrum. Even these channels may be next in line in the near future to be auctioned off to land mobile and other radio services, if what I was reading (a broadcast law blog) is any reliable indicator of what may be in store for the remains of the UHF television spectrum.

I also found out what I wanted to know about repacking TV channels. The entire DTV channel assignment system seems about to be completely overhauled, with new DTV assignments eventually being made on VHF channels 2 through 13; existing UHF assignments will remain as they are.

I have to wonder about the wisdom of this, however, since there are only so many TV stations that can be assigned to VHF channels; add to this the problems of skip, co-channel interference, et al. and it could add up to a real mess during peak or downright unusual propagation conditions, such as temperature inversions. I remember being able to receive incredible TV DX on channel 2 in the 1970s-'80s; I was getting stations at one point from as far away as Cheyenne, Wyoming one afternoon on the TV in my living room at the time, and one summer when I was getting WPBT (PBS) in Miami on channel 2 on my little Zenith J121Y 12" portable with rabbit ears. I was able to see this station on channel 2 for five days in a row. Other amazing channel 2 DX I snagged from my former home included stations from Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma . . . just about everywhere in the southwestern US except Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico and Utah. The reason I was getting stations from that region of the country was most likely because of exceptional propagation conditions from my home at the time in suburban Cleveland to the Southwest, and the fact that my TV antenna was oriented southwest to receive the Cleveland TV stations, all seven of which had (and still have) their transmitters in two southwestern suburbs of the city.

Repacking the nation's DTV stations on VHF channels (if it comes to that) is, IMO, a very bad idea, for the reasons I just mentioned. Unless the FCC is considering reassigning what's left of the UHF TV spectrum to other services, repacking stations on the much smaller VHF band could, and very likely will, cause more problems than it will solve.

[Ed in Tx]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

I also found out what I wanted to know about repacking TV channels...

I have to wonder about the wisdom of this, however, since there are only so many TV stations that can be assigned to VHF channels; add to this the problems of skip, co-channel interference, et al. and it could add up to a real mess during peak or downright unusual propagation conditions, such as temperature inversions.

I've questioned the wisdom of taking TV channels Ch 36-50 (600 mHz +) for wireless broadband use. Who the hell wants to use something the size of a UHF TV antenna to have wireless broadband? What they should go after is more desirable spectrum above 2 gHz for that purpose and leave what's left of TV alone for now. They've already taken away Ch's 51-83. FCC is finally starting to rearrange things up in the 5 gHz band which makes more sense to me.