Some general things...
All things being equal, VHF tends to travel farther than UHF. This means with equal terrain/weather conditions the same signal strength via VHF will travel farther than UHF... so a VHF conversely doesn't need to be transmitting as strong to go as far. Some stations that will switch down to a VHF frequency in Feb 2009 would not need as much power.
Analog signals have a range, but there is a point of diminishing quality beyond which the viewer gets increasingly poorer but still watchable TV. Eventually you get nothing.
Digital signals have a range, but there is a point of increasing signal errors/breakups beyond which you get increasingly more breakups but perhaps still watchable TV. Eventually you get nothing.
To some, an analog signal with a little snow is preferrable to a digital signal that breaks up, skips, etc.
In theory, the FCC is attempting to match the digital coverage to the analog coverage today... so I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that someone said channel ZZ is receivable at acceptable quality some distance from the tower in analog... then determined that an appropriately lower digital signal would reach that level and no farther.
Lots of assumptions on my part, but in theory I think that is what they are trying to do... which means some stations may go lower power if their current power is going past that determined range.
At least part of that reasoning is to prevent adjacent markets from overlapping and/or interfering with each other. There could also be a side-agenda hoping to see more OTA digital stations popup in the future too, but that's a guess on my part.
All things being equal, VHF tends to travel farther than UHF. This means with equal terrain/weather conditions the same signal strength via VHF will travel farther than UHF... so a VHF conversely doesn't need to be transmitting as strong to go as far. Some stations that will switch down to a VHF frequency in Feb 2009 would not need as much power.
Analog signals have a range, but there is a point of diminishing quality beyond which the viewer gets increasingly poorer but still watchable TV. Eventually you get nothing.
Digital signals have a range, but there is a point of increasing signal errors/breakups beyond which you get increasingly more breakups but perhaps still watchable TV. Eventually you get nothing.
To some, an analog signal with a little snow is preferrable to a digital signal that breaks up, skips, etc.
In theory, the FCC is attempting to match the digital coverage to the analog coverage today... so I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that someone said channel ZZ is receivable at acceptable quality some distance from the tower in analog... then determined that an appropriately lower digital signal would reach that level and no farther.
Lots of assumptions on my part, but in theory I think that is what they are trying to do... which means some stations may go lower power if their current power is going past that determined range.
At least part of that reasoning is to prevent adjacent markets from overlapping and/or interfering with each other. There could also be a side-agenda hoping to see more OTA digital stations popup in the future too, but that's a guess on my part.
