[BC] HDTV rollout wrinkle

[Scott Fybush]

Dana Puopolo wrote:
> This isn't 'growing pains', Scott. It's well known that low band VHF is no
> good for DTV..particularly in urban areas. There might actually be a valid
> reason for using it in rural areas-providing that stations were prepared to be
> off the air most cool summer evenings thanks to skip. The bottom line is this:
> the FCC didn't have the *balls* to stick to their guns and keep DTV off low
> band! They bent over for the lobbiests and lawyers (just like they always do!)
> and once again the public suffers for their piss poor stewardship of the
> electromagnetic spectrum. 

The bottom line is the bottom line: there's little commercial value in 
spectrum with wavelengths as long as 6 meters, and thus little incentive 
for the FCC to either put it up for auction or investigate any of the 
proposals for reusing it - which is why the status quo prevails.

> Now thay want to apply this 'band aid' that will
> work about as well as increasing the night powers of the class IVs to 1 kW did
> back in the '80s. Good luck suckers!

I'm not sure the comparison holds. Increasing the night powers of the 
class IVs dramatically increased the MW noise floor, significantly 
limiting (or entirely negating) whatever coverage gains resulted from 
the increased power. But VHF, even low-band VHF, doesn't propagate by 
skywave. Increasing the power in Philadelphia doesn't add to the noise 
floor in Georgia in any measurable way, except during the relatively 
rare periods of strong e-skip, which has been a known issue with 
low-band VHF since the earliest days of TV.

I think I'm more inclined to agree with Richard's contention that the 
problem lies largely at the receiver end: if there's a reason to fault 
the FCC here, it's more for failing to insist on tougher standards for 
DTV tuner sensitivity - and perhaps for allowing manufacturers to flood 
the stores with noisy amplified indoor antennas that are simply useless 
for reliable DTV reception.

s