free tv the way it was meant to be

electrictroy

Well we were discussing VHF 7-13. Some people want to kill that band, and others like me think it should be kept because those channels can be received with an indoor antenna.

The VHF 2-6 band probably should be eliminated. If your channel was located at 8, like mine, then you'd probably still be using an indoor rabbit ears.

NonMcTubber

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a word no electrictroy, an indoor antenna may cut it for VHF high reception if the station is fairly close, but like all television reception that diminishes with the square of the distance and also suffers when LOS is lost, it takes an outdoor antenna of proper design and aim to feed the bulldog when distances get longer.

Some people are lucky enough to live in an area where they can get more channels than you can shake a stick at with a simple, cheap, indoor antenna, sadly, eletrictroy and I do not live in one of those areas.

__________________
High definition is not the definition of my life.
But knowledge is power and HD does have some potential to increase content variety and choices.

electrictroy

Well wouldn't you rather have a VHF signal that can cross 120 miles distance (think the empty ranges of Montana), than a UHF signal that only goes 60-70 miles???

I stand by what I said before. WGAL-58 was shit that even with a large rooftop antenna kept cutting-out and freezing. WGAL-8 comes in perfectly, and that's why VHF should STAY on the television band. The weak, easily-disrupted UHF signals are unrealible oeices of cvrap compared to VHF signals!