Dave said:
As far as I know, that isn't true about Channels 14 and 15, unless that is a rule specific to Chicago. WCMU, a PBS station in Michigan, broadcast on Channel 14 for many years.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
As far as I know, that isn't true about Channels 14 and 15, unless that is a rule specific to Chicago. WCMU, a PBS station in Michigan, broadcast on Channel 14 for many years.
M.J. said:
It is specific to Chicago.
Two channels in the 14-20 spectrum are reserved for land-mobile operation within 130km of 13 of the largest markets. Chicago is of course one of them. *Which* two channels depends on the market. (in Dallas, Houston, and Miami only one channel is reserved)
Channels 15-18 are also reserved in parts of the Gulf Coast.
Mark said:
That's certainly what I believe.
As a very general rule, the larger the antenna *in terms of wavelength*, the more efficient. FCC regulation 73.189, for example, establishes minimum antenna sizes for AM stations. A typical antenna size for AM stations is 1/4 of a wavelength. (and this figure is also commonly seen in VHF/UHF antennas)
Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency. Channel 11 is roughly 200MHz; a wavelength is 1.5m, about 4-1/2 feet. Channel 19 is roughly 500MHz; a wavelength is about 0.6m or about 2 feet. (channel 3 is roughly 60MHz; a wavelength is 5m or more than 15 feet.)
So a 1/4 wave antenna for channel 19 would be about 6 inches. For channel 11 it would be about a foot. For channel 3 it would be about 4 feet!
w9wi said:
In New York, three channels are reserved (14, 15, 16) and in Los Angeles, four channels are (14, 15, 16, 20). In addition, channels adjacent to those are not allowed, and in the case of New York, land mobile channels in adjacent markets can't be used either (Philly's 19 and 20 are unusable in New York as well).
The reservations of 14 and 15 in Cleveland and 15 and 16 in Detroit were canceled and there are now digital TV stations on those frequencies.
- Trip
Now that Google has tipped its hand and announced that they, too, want to get into the TV business it becomes even clearer as to one of the motivations behind the FCC broadband plan; Google, with the help of their friends at the FCC, want the severe crippling if not the elimination of a competitor, namely broadcast TV.
I think it's time to ask what ties Genachowski and his cronies have with Google.
c5
I think it's time to ask what ties Genachowski and his cronies have with Google.
c5
If the so called "broadband" plan is to actually expand broadband coverage nationwide and provide real alternatives to rural, unserved, and underserved areas, then I'm all for it. They can shut the over the air TV broadcasts off tomorrow, if it actually means true nationwide broadband internet coverage. The majority of people already receive their programming through other means, and like it or not, broadband and internet are the real future for programming (both video and audio). Don't get me wrong, I've always been a huge radio geek (and I used to love dx'ing for those distant signals, and airchecking), but nowadays, there is no purpose, when you can simply stream anything from anywhere in the world in a matter of 10 to 20 seconds. I can understand the nostalgia for the old method of delivery, but it's much more important that we actually embrace the future and create the means to be a leader in bringing access to broadband to everyone.
As I said, I grew up loving over the air broadcasting, but I do realize that broadband is capable of providing so much more information for the available spectrum. I still love my radio (and TV), but I have to admit, I REALLY love my internet much more.
As I said, I grew up loving over the air broadcasting, but I do realize that broadband is capable of providing so much more information for the available spectrum. I still love my radio (and TV), but I have to admit, I REALLY love my internet much more.
Before this could possibly work there must be a great deal of work to maximize spectrum efficiency. As things stand, point-to-multipoint is a FAR more efficient use of capacity than thousands of devices making a discrete connection to the same broadband video stream. In the long run, it would also make sense to migrate OTA broadcasting to the more bandwidth-friendly MPEG-4 or its successor, whatever that may be, though of course that would render existing ATSC tuners obsolete.
newsbot said:
I was preparing to post the same thing. Really, for the most popular channels (both radio and TV) a broadcast technology is FAR more efficient than a collection of point-to-point streaming connections. Why tie up bandwidth transmitting the same stream 50,000 times to 50,000 different computers when you can broadcast it once?
It's when there are only a handful of listeners/viewers within the plausible coverage of a broadcast transmitter when streaming makes sens.
- Status