3 ms·
Low VHF isn't viable long term and they have to leave gaps in allocations so neighboring markets don't conflict. I doubt they'll shrink it any more. There's alr
by kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Low VHF isn't viable long term and they have to leave gaps in allocations so neighboring markets don't conflict. I doubt they'll shrink it any more. There's already going to be a crunch when the deadline to cutoff ATSC 1 approaches and everyone is going to have to simulcast both 1 & 3 with some likely delays extending the overlap phase.
- sidewndr46 3y agoWhat exactly makes Low VHF non viable in the long term? Is the atmosphere going to start attenuating certain frequencies more in coming years?
- jkingsman 3y agoI think physics is actually moving to a fee-based structure /s
- toast0 3y agoI thought ATSC 3 was supposed to make VHF viable again. I guess it depends on how many people got "HD" antennas geared for UHF with maybe marginal coverage for high VHF.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoThe antenna situation is the problem. I have a pre-HD 4-bay bowtie UHF antenna that works great on high-VHF for my location. I'm not going to bother with the hassle of adding a second antenna for the low end because of unnecessary bureaucratic shuffling. Normies aren't going to bother sorting that out with all the marginal UHF-only antennas that have been dumped onto the market.