Odd Lots

Jan 04, 2011 20:40

ham radio, humor, language, science, astronomy, software

Leave a comment

Re: Say. jeff_duntemann January 13 2011, 15:40:01 UTC
Cell tower antennas are relatively specific to cell service, and fairly narrowband. That's important more on receive than on transmit, but existing cell antennas would work poorly in UHF TV service.

I have a hunch that the FCC wouldn't license such an application, but I could be wrong about that. More to the point, I'm not sure how many TVs still in service can pick up the full range of former UHF frequencies. Channels 70-83 have been gone since 1983, and channels 52-69 went away in 2009.

A national, low-power UHF TV broadcast network is an interesting idea, but I don't know whether it would be economically viable even if it went on the air. UHF has serious line-of-sight transmission issues (i.e., "big stuff in the way") and I doubt the picture quality would match the HDTV that everybody is getting used to at a gallop these days.

So whereas it's a neat idea, I'm guessing it would be an immense amount of work to perfect at those frequencies, for a service that isn't really in demand, given the preponderance of cable and satellite delivery of very high quality video programming.

Reply

Re: Say. baron_waste January 13 2011, 18:23:02 UTC

Thank 'ee. You're “a highly qualified source.”

Y' know, though, if the godless commies from outer space - or the Federal Emergency Management Authority - ever took over the good ol' USA, such a system might become the Voice of the Resistance, piggybacked onto the nationalized Federal Telephone and Television Administration equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WGU-20

Reply


Leave a comment

Up