I have not looked at the rules lately but as I recall when the move to digital happened the power reduction from Analog to the new digital transmitters dropped by I think 80%, his was for the UHF bands, when staying in the VHF bands the power reduction requirement was even more, plus I think there was the problem of operating both the analog and digital stations simultaneously during that whole transition period.
Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jaime Solorza Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 6:10 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: Re: [AFMUG] A crossroads for over-the-air TV |SanDiegoUnionTribune.com That's what my pea brain tells me...larger wavelength will probably hit something first outdoors but I know for a fact that 2.4 GHz systems down converted to 450XXX MHz does provide true Non Line of Sight using OFDM. I tested it in a Phelps Dodge (now McNichols or whatever) here in El Paso with their engineering guys. AP on engineer.s desk connected to Internet and us in a van drove everywhere we had access to, behind structures, pipes size of houses, down hill, behind tanks full of liquids,etc. I am sure Ken is correct in that they want the 500 to 700 MHz bands...less towers or POPs to deploy to cover larger areas. Hell on highways where there is only 2 and 3G or no coverage, they can install a few to cover long stretches. Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390 On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: I hear that all the time and unless there’s something I’m missing, it’s a bunch of crap. Probably a misunderstanding that there are more UHF channels than VHF channels? What I hear/read a lot is that millimeter wave frequencies carry more data because of the higher frequency. Bah! It’s because you can use wider channels. In this case, I suspect it’s just that the LTE guys don’t want VHF spectrum. But UHF is right next to frequencies they already use. From: Jaime Solorza <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 3:46 PM To: Animal Farm <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] A crossroads for over-the-air TV |SanDiegoUnionTribune.com interesting point that they claim UHF can carry more data compared to VHF....I am assuming blocks of 6 MHz channels in either band would provide similar results in a lab. Outdoors I suspect it all changes.. Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390 On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: screwed From: George Skorup <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] A crossroads for over-the-air TV | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com So if they force a bunch of broadcasters back to VHF, what about all those people who have new UHF-only antennas? On 1/28/2016 8:25 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: So, just a few years ago, HDTV forced them from VHF to UHF. Now they are going to force them back to VHF? From: Jaime Solorza <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 9:15 PM To: Animal Farm <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [AFMUG] A crossroads for over-the-air TV | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jan/27/FCC-spectrum-auction-netflix-amazon-TV-stations/
