Tom Barry wrote: > Yes, I guess that is true but it's such a bad decision I > wish we wouldn't perpetuate it. Not quite the case. FCC 96-317 (from 1996) ftp://www.fcc.gov/pub/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/1996/fcc9631= 7.pdf summarizes past decisions and makes new rules. One of the new proposals, by the way, was to add VHF into the spectrum available for ATSC, but to limit DTT to channels to 7-51. Before that, only UHF was being considered for ATSC. Anyway, on the subject of coverage, the FCC had to establish a frequency plan for DTT, which included questions of radiated power and antenna height. So they had to set down criteria for the new ATSC service. To do this, you need an objective. The objective proposed in this document was to equal NTSC (grade B) coverage of the analog signal of each station with the digital signal of that same station. Now the FCC could figure out how much signal the DTT stations would need to transmit, and how to prevent interference with other markets and with existing NTSC stations. Greater than NTSC coverage would be gravy. But that couldn't be allowed if it created interference. So this is NOT a question of "no greater than NTSC," but rather "at least as good as NTSC," subject to a set of (sensible) constraints. I see nothing bad about any of this. It seems quite logical. Anyway, here's the part that addresses coverage compared with NTSC. Notice the part about going beyond this amount of coverage, as long as it didn't interfere with other signals: ----------------------------- 13. Proposal. In reviewing this issue, we agree with those in the broadcasting industry who have argued that replication of existing service areas in the new DTV allotments offers important benefits for both viewers and stations. Replication would generally maintain the 19 service areas of existing NTSC stations, thereby preserving viewers' access to off-the-air TV service and the ability of stations to reach the audiences that they now serve. Accordingly, we are proposing to identify digital TV allotments that, to the extent possible, will allow all existing broadcasters to provide digital TV service to a geographic area that is comparable to their existing NTSC service area. In this regard, we also propose to specify for each DTV 21 allotment a maximum permissible effective radiated power (ERP) and antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) that would, to the extent possible, provide for replication of the station's existing service area. Furthermore, as discussed below, we are proposing to allow stations to maximize or increase their service area where such an increase would not create additional interference. (Footnote 22) 14. We request comment on all aspects of our proposal to use the service replication plan in allotting and assigning initial channels for digital TV service. We also request comment on whether it might be more desirable instead to adopt our original plan to allot DTV channels using an approach that maximizes the service areas of all DTV stations. This approach would tend to equalize the coverage areas of all stations within a market and reduce the current disparities among stations. We request comment on whether our original approach would be more appropriate and would provide more incentives for broadcasters to implement digital service more quickly than the service replication approach. Footnote 22. Stations would be permitted to increase their power and antenna height up to that permitted for maximum facilities, as discussed below in Section IX. ----------------------------- I'm not sure what would have been a more appropropriate stategy. Bert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.