Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No problem. Those services have never been on FM channels.
That would be the point of moving exclusively to digital broadcasts. You free up bandwidth for other services. The frequencies previously used for analog TV are now occupied by cell and other services, that was only possible by consolidating OTA TV into a much narrower range of frequencies using digital transmissions.
Last edited by thecoalman; 04-21-2015 at 10:51 AM..
That would be the point of moving exclusively to digital broadcasts. You free up bandwidth for other services. The frequencies previously used for analog TV are now occupied by cell and other services, that was only possible by consolidating OTA TV into a much narrower range of frequencies using digital transmissions.
Which will further compress the signal further eroding the quality. We simply do not need 5000 stations of anything.
Which will further compress the signal further eroding the quality.
There is no compromise in quality, I don't know what the exact number is but it's something like 4 or 5 broadcasts of Bluray quality HD over the same frequency occupied by one analog channel. The different frequencies can be spaced closer together compared to analog without interfering with each other.
Bluray is typically about 25Mbps, the HD from your cable company is probably about 6 to 8Mbps at best. This may come as surprise to many but the quality of OTA channels are superior to cable becsue they don't have the same bandwidth limitations.
That would be the point of moving exclusively to digital broadcasts. You free up bandwidth for other services. The frequencies previously used for analog TV are now occupied by cell and other services, that was only possible by consolidating OTA TV into a much narrower range of frequencies using digital transmissions.
Your local TV stations may have screwed up but that no way effect the fact Digital has far more range for a give set of conditions.
I call total baloney on that. If you had been getting very snowy out of town analog TV stations, you now likely can't get anything at all from them now that they have changed to all digital. So I'm not about to swallow the notion that digital TV stations get out much further. At best they get out with steady reception at about the same distance as analog stations once did with decent reception with little or no snow.
There is another massive reallocation under way for next year. Local TV stations supposed to transfer 100 megacycles of bandwidth to the phone systems.
Not known what is actually going to happen...well over 80 billion may change hands...or nothing may happen vif the TV stations decide not to sell..
How much can be reallocated with radio which requires minimal bandwidth? If they took a different approach than what they did with TV and broadcast different radio stations on the same frequency.... just a wild guess but it has to be something like at least a hundred channels on the same frequency.
I don't see how either could make a difference assuming the same transmission power. The big difference is poor reception on analog doesn't necessarily mean you lose the whole transmission. A snowy picture is just as unwatchable as no TV as far as I'm concerned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
