[BC] Re: Alternative reality

[Tom]

Dunno 'bout Congress (who does?), but there ARE allocations in 
low-band for DTV operations.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6466009.html

"All the channels are between 2 and 51, with the rest of the channels 
being reclaimed and auctioned for advanced wireless communications."

The final Report and Order - as RTF document - is available at

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A1.d

Quick scan of the list shows Low-Band assignments in Alaska, 
California, Colorado, Maine, Nebraska, Florida...

And that's just 2 and 3...and not all of those, even

Tom S.

r j carpenter wrote:
>Doesn't Congress expect to balance the Federal budget by selling 
>channels 2-6 to other services in most of the US?  If so, setting 
>even part of them aside for an AM-replacement is a non-starter.
>
>I think that sporadic E long-distance interference at channel 2 
>would make the occasional tropo QRM on 88-108 look trivial. I've 
>told the story before, but remember when Collins ran 49.8 MHz from 
>Cedar Rapids for the NBS ionoscatter tests. Collins had a 20kW xmtr 
>and NBS received on a 600-foot rhombic antenna near where Dulles 
>Airport is now located near Washington. On one good Es day, a small 
>pilot lamp (2V 60mA??) was connected to the receive antenna and it 
>was visibly lit by the incoming signal!!  I don't know the Collins 
>ERP. Rhombics don't have a lot of gain for their size. NBS chose the 
>rhombic because it was cheap, quick and they had the space.