Jump to content

frequency list


tbs123456

Recommended Posts

I fully agree on the 6-7. All you really need a the major players for the HD's and news. I disagree on the crap though, lots of good stuff on OTA even on some of the SDs...maybe it's the sense of pride that I get it over the air. I'm not into watching all that Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore garbage on other networks. Oh I miss the days of C-Band when you could pick which channels you wanted instead of having to buy packages. Hell, I miss the days of C-Band when most stuff was in the clear. That's a whole other thread...

 

I agree with you there Digiblur, I still have my 12' Paraclips dish in my backyard here but not hooked up. I remember those days cause I had that dish since 1992 at my mobile home before moving it to my current location and where you could watch all those free and all those well, you know all those PPV, Premium channels, & other channels thru getting codes to put in where you get the East, Central, Mtn, & West coast local channels.

 

Here is a picture of my 12' dish I would get my free channels from.

080905_2345.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to turn this into another crazy discussion. I would die to have that thing in my backyard right now. I have only a 90cm right now for KU band. Lots of stuff up there to be watched for free..legally.. (no hacking here) Your jaw would hit the floor if you saw the quality of a 40 megabit 1080i football game. Watched quite a few football games on it even some that were not televised till the next day or some that were on PPV but the backhaul was in the clear with no encryption.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to turn this into another crazy discussion. I would die to have that thing in my backyard right now. I have only a 90cm right now for KU band. Lots of stuff up there to be watched for free..legally.. (no hacking here) Your jaw would hit the floor if you saw the quality of a 40 megabit 1080i football game. Watched quite a few football games on it even some that were not televised till the next day or some that were on PPV but the backhaul was in the clear with no encryption.

 

I'm jealous as I cannot stand the local affiliate WAFB, and their garbage of a feed. I'd almost be tempted to get the setup just for CBS alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm jealous as I cannot stand the local affiliate WAFB, and their garbage of a feed. I'd almost be tempted to get the setup just for CBS alone.

 

Yes.. Hate their feed. Glad to have WWL too ;)

 

-- "Sensorly or it didn't happen!"

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand it is for military, I agree it wouldn't be easy, but safe i disagree with. You can maintain current levels and consolidate spectrum between branches of the military and/or government. You cut the Government reserved prime spectrum by 15% and then sell off the "Prime Real Estate" to mobile vendors. Put that money towards the budget or deficit.

 

And then what happens when multi million dollar UAVs start crashing because of interference? There goes your savings and likely national security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to turn this into another crazy discussion. I would die to have that thing in my backyard right now. I have only a 90cm right now for KU band. Lots of stuff up there to be watched for free..legally.. (no hacking here) Your jaw would hit the floor if you saw the quality of a 40 megabit 1080i football game. Watched quite a few football games on it even some that were not televised till the next day or some that were on PPV but the backhaul was in the clear with no encryption.

 

Thanks I thought you would like that. I plan on moving that to Arkansas from this POS of a state Calif when I get the money to move out there and have that dish re-done to get all the free backhauls on Ku-Band and maybe some C-Band stuff with a Free To Air unit and hook that up to my 65in HDTV 1080i/p system to watch that shows up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then what happens when multi million dollar UAVs start crashing because of interference? There goes your savings and likely national security.

 

Wow, exaggerate much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, exaggerate much?

 

No

 

http://www.thedailyb...rone-crash.html

 

http://articles.lati...e-iran-20111206

 

You think those things are cheap? And do you want them having any chance of interference because the military has to cut back on their use of spectrum? For the US cell operators to warehouse some more spectrum?

 

Edit: and that is just the tip of the iceburg. The government is utilizing their spectrum far more than the civilian sector is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No

 

http://www.thedailyb...rone-crash.html

 

http://articles.lati...e-iran-20111206

 

You think those things are cheap? And do you want them having any chance of interference because the military has to cut back on their use of spectrum? For the US cell operators to warehouse some more spectrum?

 

Edit: and that is just the tip of the iceburg. The government is utilizing their spectrum far more than the civilian sector is.

 

Based on how our government works, I'll agree to disagree with you on that one. Working in government, I see the waste on a daily basis and am disgusted by it.

 

I never said I want the military to crash drones, you brought that up. Also, you brought up the military aspect, there is a good deal of other "government only" spectrum that is not for the military.

 

Finally, its not just to "house" spectrum. It is to more efficiently utilize better spectrum. I'd much rather see carriers putting up less towers and using frequencies that can travel further/penetrate buildings better. Then use femto/pico cell technology for in home or high population areas (think apartment buildings/arenas/shopping malls/stadiums/convention centers/office buildings/etc).

 

Additionally, I think that the FCC needs to grow some balls and enforce use of existing spectrum before new spectrum can be bid/acquired. Make more spectrum available to public which will either bring new providers to the industry or force existing entities to fully utilize thier current allocations before acquiring more. I'm still sick to my stomach that the Verizon/SpectrumCo deal got approved. Verizon is probably the biggest abuser of under utilizing what they currently have. Hell they are sitting on 750/850/1900 and now AWS?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Verizon starts a network modernization project with LTE-A on AWS in the next year, then I have no major issues with their spectrum. They use their spectrum pretty efficiently and have the most customers. They have LTE capacity issues on 700 and they will need AWS sooner rather than later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don't know much about Verizon's 1900 utilization /850 geographic overlap, but it would be nice if they could be forced to divest some of their PCS holdings

 

Outside of NYC, VZW does not hold that much PCS 1900 MHz spectrum overlapping its Cellular 850 MHz licenses. In many markets, VZW has only 10-20 MHz PCS. So, no, it is not this great repository of PCS spectrum.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's the wrong mentality. Clearing them out is bad for everyone. There goes your ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS, NBC, CW, etc. Peace out! Most satellite TV POPs use OTA to pick up the signal and send it out via spotbeam. Some cable co's use OTA for some TV channels where they could not obtain it via fiber economically. I use OTA all the time as the quality is better than what you can get over the cable or satellite signal, 19 megabits per OTA mux. Straight from the source. I know a few people who have gone to OTA only (even DVRs) with some sort of streaming supplement, like Netflix. You really can't beat that combination for $8 a month. I have a little rechargeable LCD panel that picks up all my OTA channels works great out at the camp, boat, and best of all hurricanes when there is no power or cable TV.

 

And there are a TON of signals there. 52 muxes, some contain one HD, and one or two SDs. Some have many SD channels. Too bad they didn't mandate MPEG4 during the conversion instead of just MPEG2. That would save two folds on things. Could have gone with 3mhz wide instead of 6mhz.

 

http://www.rabbitear...ket.php?mktid=2

 

Most of major networks use channels 2-14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of NYC, VZW does not hold that much PCS 1900 MHz spectrum overlapping its Cellular 850 MHz licenses. In many markets, VZW has only 10-20 MHz PCS. So, no, it is not this great repository of PCS spectrum.

 

AJ

 

They have 30MHz in Florida:).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of major networks use channels 2-14.

 

Not from what I've seen. Most TV stations abandoned 2-6(VHF Lo) due to the noise issues and digital not playing well together. Some have even done the same with 7-13(VHF Hi). But there is a significant savings in the power bill every month when you compare what is needed for a UHF station to a VHF Hi. I and many others wish that the digital transition would have got rid of VHF altogether. It's confusing to people when they can't pick up the one VHF station in their market when they have only a UHF antenna.

 

Don't confuse the virtual channel numbers with the actual channel numbers. For instance one local station here used to be on Channel 2. The went to 13 and stayed there. But everyone knows them as Channel 2. So when you scan them in on your TV it shows up at as 2-1, 2-2, etc for their channels. Now the confusing part... a station vacates channel 8 and moves to channel 15. Their virtual is 8. Well channel 8 is open in that market. Another station could come in and apply for it. Now since they are actually channel 8 now, do you call them channel 8 too? What virtual number do they get assigned since 8 is already taken? Fun fun fun....

 

http://www.rabbitears.info/statistics.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have 30MHz in Florida:).

 

Yes, but that is standalone PCS spectrum throughout most of the state. In Miami, for example, VZW holds no Cellular 850 MHz license, hence my point about PCS overlapping Cellular spectrum.

 

AJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not from what I've seen. Most TV stations abandoned 2-6(VHF Lo) due to the noise issues and digital not playing well together. Some have even done the same with 7-13(VHF Hi). But there is a significant savings in the power bill every month when you compare what is needed for a UHF station to a VHF Hi. I and many others wish that the digital transition would have got rid of VHF altogether. It's confusing to people when they can't pick up the one VHF station in their market when they have only a UHF antenna.

 

Don't confuse the virtual channel numbers with the actual channel numbers. For instance one local station here used to be on Channel 2. The went to 13 and stayed there. But everyone knows them as Channel 2. So when you scan them in on your TV it shows up at as 2-1, 2-2, etc for their channels. Now the confusing part... a station vacates channel 8 and moves to channel 15. Their virtual is 8. Well channel 8 is open in that market. Another station could come in and apply for it. Now since they are actually channel 8 now, do you call them channel 8 too? What virtual number do they get assigned since 8 is already taken? Fun fun fun....

 

http://www.rabbitear.../statistics.php

 

I did not mean their virtual channel numbers, I meant their actual channel numbers. So you can still have VHF Hi and UHF Lo for at the most 20 channels that you need to avoid interference between adjacent markets. Nowhere near the 50 channels we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I did not mean their virtual channel numbers, I meant their actual channel numbers. So you can still have VHF Hi and UHF Lo for at the most 20 channels that you need to avoid interference between adjacent markets. Nowhere near the 50 channels we have now.

 

Look at the stats though.

 

-- "Sensorly or it didn't happen!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an overreaction. Most TV markets do not need greater than 6-7 OTA channels. ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and PBS affiliates, maybe an independent or two. Although, really, outside of the major affiliates, most OTA is cheap crap not worthy of a 6 MHz swath of spectrum.

 

The other thing is that with intelligent spectrum use (e.g. more digital subchannels), most markets could actually have a lot more OTA channels than today. The UK has dozens of free-to-air channels in a similar amount of spectrum to what we have today. But most basic cable channels prefer getting rights fees from DBS and big cable to being available OTA for free (the same way that Disney makes more money from having the BCS games on ESPN instead of ABC, even though they'd get better ratings on ABC). And besides the religious broadcasters most OTA stations want to broadcast in HD even though most antenna-only households are SD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And besides the religious broadcasters most OTA stations want to broadcast in HD even though most antenna-only households are SD.

 

Most do broadcast in HD, doesn't matter to the digital tuner if they have an 19 inch old school black and white TV, the standalone tuners output the correct signal. Even the cheapie throw away TVs all come with digital tuners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And besides the religious broadcasters most OTA stations want to broadcast in HD even though most antenna-only households are SD.

 

Says who? You'd be surprised. Most antenna only households made the jump to HD back when the digital conversion happened. Or they're not watching anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's being picky but the digital transition had zero to do with HD..just like it had zero to do with cable TV and satellite TV. Stations could transmit in 480i all day long if they wanted. And one more I want to add, there's nothing that makes an antenna a digital one ;) Remember the Color TV antennas?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's being picky but the digital transition had zero to do with HD..just like it had zero to do with cable TV and satellite TV. Stations could transmit in 480i all day long if they wanted. And one more I want to add, there's nothing that makes an antenna a digital one ;) Remember the Color TV antennas?

 

Very true. We can pull in all the UHF channels with a paper clip. But OTA signals still were generally broadcasting HD, at least in prime time when the switch happened. Most house holds that didn't get the digital converters (which were very under utilized), either went with an HD (digital) ready TV, or don't watch any more. At least that's what Nielson tells us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's being picky but the digital transition had zero to do with HD..just like it had zero to do with cable TV and satellite TV. Stations could transmit in 480i all day long if they wanted. And one more I want to add, there's nothing that makes an antenna a digital one ;) Remember the Color TV antennas?

 

Well it had one thing to do with HDTV. It got a lot of people to throw away the big box for a cheap flat panel from Vizio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

    • Yet another "Carrier" move: T-Mobile users have only now discovered sneaky change made in May
    • Went to Hurricane Harbor again this past weekend, this time testing Verizon and T-Mobile. In my testing, Verizon is now the fastest carrier, at least on the Hurricane Harbor sector. Despite it being pretty overcast on Saturday with temperatures in the mid-80's the park was at full capacity.  Verizon had 160MHz of n77 and T-Mobile now has 160MHz of n41. On LTE I was seeing speeds in the range of 50-100Mbps while T-Mobile's LTE on was completely swamped, barely crossing 3Mbps. While both carriers only have a single high capacity sector (facing Great Adventure, Verizon benefits from having CBRS deployed on all sectors. This is an extra 60-100MHz of capacity that T-Mobile doesn't have. Maybe when T-Mobile gets around to deploying their C-band we'll see a boost in speeds again to be more competitive with Verizon. On the 5G side of things, T-Mobile's speeds were just over half that of Verizon.  That said, neither carrier was slow and I had zero issue using Xbox Cloud Gaming on T-Mobile despite their weaker upload speeds and higher ping.  
    • I think the newer ones have signal bars on them. I took a photo of one in Red Hook a month or two ago that had the same design.
    • Well well, looks like we found one of the two Link5G towers that might actually have 5G. Notice anything different? This one has the same signal bars icon that the pole mounted 5G oDAS units have. It’s in Chinatown at East Broadway and Forsyth St. It’s impossible to tell what carrier it is, though.
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...