Could you be able to tell me what addition to an Gary-Hoverman antenna could be made to get better VHF signals ??? I live in the greater Philadelphia near Lehigh valley area. Thanks
5:39 THIS is the reason why I don't donate money to charities...I donate food to my local food banks. Clothing and furniture to local Salvation Army, Stores etc... I also donate food and supplies to local pet shelters...but never money.
@Steve 'o One time while dropping off a donation at a Goodwill store I noticed some real nice vintage items setting on top of a cabinet amongst the bins of donations as if they were specifically pulled out and set aside by someone. Another time I donated a pickup load of items to St Vinny's and the guy was throwing items from the back of my truck directly into the dumpster. Including valuable antiques. Now I only donate unwanted household items. Nothing of real value.
Tyler, you missed your calling. As much as I respect and benefit from your considerable knowledge of OTA broadcast reception, you are one heck of a investigative reporter. My jaw dropped when I learned how WGBH screwed their loyal, unsuspecting subscribers, and took a bundle of cash to support their astronomically bloated management salary structure.
@@AntennaMan I would hope defunding was going to happen. But history tells me that the customers and middle class will always get the shaft. Those who know history are bound not to repeat blinders of history except the bureaucracy that claims to work for us all. The great American Lie. Thanks for letting us all know how we got hosed by the FCC.
@@AntennaMan They should have been defunded years ago, In Fact, Why should my tax dollars go these parasites who ask for you to give them donations, Frankly CPB/PBS That's one monopoly which should be scrapped and sold off piece meal.
As the time approached for repack Phase 4 (Boston area), we tried to explain to WGBH that moving to low VHF would make it _impossible_ for many people to receive their station unless they had one of the very few huge antennas left on the market today that is capable of picking up low VHF--and that the situation wouldn't improve just by increasing their transmitter power. Yes, the map showing the area within which they _can_ be received well would expand with more power, but it seemed lost on them that only the people inside that area who have the huge 6-8' wide antennas would be able to pick them up _at all_ . IMO the repack was the FCC's missed opportunity to move everybody OUT of low VHF, so that we could finally dispense with unwieldy low VHF antennas altogether.
Lots of these stations are doing the samething...but pbs selling out how sad going against everything the station USED to stand for...Shame on you PBS.......
4k and 8k hdtv are coming. Vhf has 10 times the bandwidth. It's easy to measure this... compare antennas. He's not telling the whole story. More private stations have moved or just sold their uhf transponder outright. Vhf is always preferred. Goes through trees, around hills better and longer distance with the same power as uhf. He's just mad because his short arms can't manage a proper vhf/uhf antenna. Also he likely installed uhf only splitters and amplifiers. He needs to blame something.
I installed my roof top antenna BEFORE digital TV. Basically, channels 2-13 were VHF and that's where all the networks were. (The antenna was on sale at radio shack for $25.) I did a quick "information" from my "front end" box (digital tuner/recorder) and found the NBC and Fox moved to UHF. ABC and CBS are on VHF (upper band). I'm about 40 air miles away from the stations.
PBS is what you get when you rely on the subscribers to stay afloat. Commercial TV relies on ads. So long as advertisers are willing to be associated with programming content, you got the $$$ to be profitable. With “commercial free” TV, programming and stations depend on patrons just to stay afloat (not to mention government subsidies). If your programming doesn’t attract viewers, it won’t attract donors...which is automatically a smaller pool of money. Also, frankly, all people are cheapskates, but more so the liberals who claim to love PBS. They still expect government to pay for it when they are majority dependent on individual donations to stay in business.
@ⅰи∂ㄩㄅ360, there's more truth to your comment than most would ever believe, PBS has been nothing but a propaganda and indoctrination network for the far left anti-American socialist democrats for many years, I quit watching that network in 2008 after I saw how they aggressively supported the anti-American, fraud, and Kenyan, Obama.
Especially because the station he worked for WQED also sold out! It is a serious struggle here in the suburbs of Pittsburgh to be able to pick up QED. Had to buy a new antenna and I just barely get it.
Exactly what I was going to say. His life's work and congressional testimony were crucial to PBS keeping its funding, and now his own station sold itself out. Hard to believe.
@@mrjohnson281able qed was vhf before. Vhf has 10 times the bandwidth uhf has. Funny.... You can literally measure the difference by the size of the antenna requirements.
@@jamescarter3196 didn't sell out. They owned the uhf channel. Sold it, and also received a vhf channel that has 10 times the bandwidth. When 4K (8K, or 12K) TV comes, they will be ready. Vhf isn't new. Before HDTV came out, all major TV stations were Vhf. Why? Longer distance . In my area, an ABC affiliate sold one of their uhf transponders. They didn't bother recreating the channels that were on it. Pbs didn't change.
Don't know what I would do without to guide us through the ever changing signal situation. You always have the answer the question of the day. Thanks 🙏 Tyler without you we would be lost.
A couple of the stations in my area switched to VHF 1 low, one high, and I get them better than when they were UHF. In the analog days I could always get VHF channels 90 miles from my house with rabbit ears but barely receive UHF channels with a large outdoor antenna. The amount of power needed to transmit VHF is considerably lower than UHF for the same range. I do feel bad for people in apartments having to find a way to get a vhf antenna to fit in their apartments. I still believe that VHF is great for rural parts of the US. It is definitely shitty that WGBH Boston switched to VHF-lo. In South Korea Apartment building owners mount a TV antenna and then distributes the signal to each apartment instead of having a 200 antennas mounted improperly that could come loose and hurt someone.
I very much appreciate you getting this information out. And those who did take advantage of the reverse spectrum who, in turn, never really let their viewers (i.e. contributors) know about it should be ashamed. It happened here in Virginia. $182 million to take two Northern Virginia PBS stations off the air completely since they weren't the main PBS stations for Washington, D.C. So, when Virginia Public Media asks for money, I usually scream at my television under my breath. They took some of the money and bought two commercial FM's, turned them non-commercial, and lessened the options for good formats in Richmond. There's no reason to give a dime to a PBS station who cashed in back in 2017 if they did not offer complete transparency to their viewers and their communities.
@@Art_Martial Triggered much? :D Last I checked, Fox News or any other conservative outlet didn't pull down TV stations or presidents on social media. No confusion about who did that here!
Thanks Tyler! WQED screwed me, and they still ask for money, lol. I could not get a straight answer of why I could no long get them. I rescanned for weeks. Now I know, they will never see another dime from me. I thought PBS was for the little guy and a beacon of hope, yea, right!
I bought a GE Pro Outdoor antenna at Walmart, roughly $50, similar design to a Yagi. I can now just barely pick up WQED from where I am in Natrona Heights. Signal strength is about 60% but sometimes at night it will cut out. The antenna is compact and the biggest VHF whip is maybe 5 feet. It is directional, so there was a lot of playing around involved. Best of luck to you all.
5:39 THIS is the reason why I don't donate money to charities...I donate food to my local food banks. Clothing and furniture to local Salvation Army, Stores etc... I also donate food and supplies to local pet shelters...but never money.
The multi-billion dollar charity industry has been severely abused more times than not 99% of the time, the majority of donations conveniently fall into the pockets of the CEO's and or those in control of receiving the charities. I only give to people that I personally see that need help and to the churches that I know that actually help the needy. Most of the animal humane society organizations that rely on charity are total scams that are connected to the far left socialist democrat party, that care less about the animals, they want that money for pushing their anti-American socialist agenda.
@@alanwylie8960 I donate to two charities through payroll deductions. One is NumbersUSA, because it's a conservative nonprofit. I also donate to an animal charity, but its a smaller organization based in Africa, dedicated to the eradication of poaching. This organization sends quarterly reports to donors to show what exactly they spend donations on. I never donate to those pet charities. Pets aren't endangered species, and they're a dime a dozen. The director of our local humane society has a huge salary, yet somehow there is never any money to hire staff. You're right about it being a scam.
Actually low VHF stations used to be the most common back in the 50s and 60s. And low VHF did have an advantage back then. Analogue signals on low VHF usually can go farther than higher frequencies. That's why high VHF stations usually had more power.
Yep. I remember when the first UHF TV stations went on the air. They were horrible compared to VHF low or high. This video is all just PBS-bashing and not recognizing the reality of the world we live in concerning broadcast TV's decline in viewership.
That was true through the 80's and 90's. The thing that turned the situation in favor of UHF was the proliferation of electrical noise-producing gadgets in the last 50 years that interfere with low-VHF reception. If you live on a remote farm in Iowa, that's not a problem, but it makes low-VHF almost useless in a high-density urban setting. The poster didn't mention another fact: Not all the PBS stations put a "digital" UHF channel on the air to aid in the transition. Many just cut their old VHF transmitter over to digital on the same high-VHF channel they previously used for analog.
Yep, VHF low was 100k watts max, VHF high was 316K watts max, and UHF was 5M watts max- to get the same quality coverage area. BUT, UHF stations ran on a shoe string back then so most couldn't afford to pay the electric bill for 5M watt transmitters. Thus, they were harder to receive.
Your point “Many countries no longer use low VHF...” is correct. I think almost every country outside of the USA dropped low V many many years ago. As you pointed out a really big antenna is needed for optimum reception and these are quite hard to find. And an indoor Low V antenna probably doesn’t exist.
Times change. I am an old guy and I remember when the network stations in bigger towns were on the low VHF TV channels. If there was an independent station they were up in UHF. I lived in an area that was late to get TV stations and all our stations were UHF. In those days most TV receivers did not have UHF tuners and needed an external UHF tuner. The tuners were not channelized. They had constant tune dials.
Thank you for this information !!!! We Canadians enjoy the PBS stations broadcast our way. Many are subscribers and contribute to them. This is an eye-opener. This explains why lately we have had issues with the signals.
You're awesome, kid, and the work you are doing and the education you are providing is important and appreciated. I am in 89509 and I am ready for your help to pick the right chimney mounted antenna. We are apparently not affected by the FCC Repack, whatever that means.
Clicked on this with passing interest but surprised at the great content and links to additional information as I cut the cord a couple years ago (unfortunately no choice for internet but Comcast). Very nice work. Thanks for taking the time to put it out to the masses.
Several stations in my area combined with each other and shut down some transmitters. Some small failing stations took the money and ran. As for low-VHF, it depends on your situation whether it will be better for you. It may enable them to cover more area than UHF. But as you said, it might be more prone to interference. Most people won't realize that is happening, because with DTV, you either have a perfect picture, or none at all. I think the way many station operators look at it is, the majority of their audience gets the signal from cable or satellite, and they don't really care about a few OTA viewers that might be lost. The odd thing is, a few years earlier, they were trying to get TV to move up to UHF (during the DTV changover) so they could give VHF spectrum to land mobile use. Now they are getting squeezed from above to make room for more cell/data stuff. TV used to go all the way up to channel 80 as well. They want everyone to use cable or satellite.
One more note about VHF low band. Back in the 50's we had 2 -15 ft long antennas on our roof with a switch. One antenna was tuned specifically for Ch 8 (90 mi) and the other for Ch 3 (60 mi) (it was a monster) The Ch 8 antenna picked up Ch 3 very poorly, even though the channel was closer. So for those with PBS stations now on VHF Lo band, you NEED a VHF low band antenna!! Most of the lower cost outside antennas on the market today are only good down to Ch 7. You need to spend the higher dollars and invest in a real ALL channel antenna that includes Lo Band. It will make all the difference between picking it up or not picking it up. And yes, they are LARGE! I'm sure Tyler can install it for you!
This is very interesting and not surprising. Every station I can pick up where I live took the money. Our PBS station WKLE46 in central Kentucky is infamous for its crappy reception unless you live close to the transmitter tower. If you live in Lexington or Paris nearby it's almost impossible to get get a signal. The Fox station WDKY56 is on the same transmitter tower and reception is consistently excellent. Why is that? On the FCC reception map, they are both listed as UHF. The tower they share is only 24 miles from my house. EDIT: I think I may have found the answer: Channel 46 RX Strength: 73 dbuV/m versus Channel 56 RX Strength: 94 dbuV/m The last time I got one of those pleading donation calls, I told them when you boost your signal, I'll consider sending some money your way. Looks like they are not getting a dime from me.
When I was a kid our NBC station in Houston was on channel 2. A lot of people had trouble getting a clear signal on it and even on cable they moved it to channel 12 to improve reception. However when we put a TV antenna on the roof it was actually the sharpest and most vivid of them all with 11 and 13 being the next best. Sometimes tropo or the powerlines would cause some interference, but it wasn't all that bad. We also got channel 3 in Bryan 100 miles away. It was fuzzy, but watchable. If VHF Low doesn't come in well it means you have the wrong antenna. Sadly most antenna's out there today are not made for VHF Low.
Very true. I grew up 10 miles from NYC. The CBS station was on channel 2. We also had a rooftop antenna. Our experience was the same, channel 2 was one of the best channels in terms of reception. It's all about having the right antenna and having it set up properly.
A lot of people don't even realize there's still broadcast tv. They've told me so. The cable companies are quite happy to perpetuate that myth so THEY can pick up the broadcast signal on their building roof then sell it to you even though it's originally a free signal. That's perilously close to fraud in my book.
Thanks for the update Tyler, all these continued realignments for broadcast tv is such a pain in the ass! It's not just rescanning but having to delete all the channels you never watch every time! Thanks again bud!
Whats chapping his nads is the tiny uhf antenna is not good by itself anymore. You need a vhf antenna also. They are pretty big unfortunately. But vhf reaches farther, passes through trees buildings terrain easier and has 10 times the bandwidth that uhf has.
Thank you for this video. I've been trying to figure out why the PBS stations in my area (Boston) were broadcasting in SD. I remember getting these stations in HD since it came out. Then with the spectrum shift , they went to SD. I have a decent antenna and receive these signals no problem just in crappy SD. Thanks again for the heads up.
@@AntennaMan Thanks Tyler...Just subscribed to your channel. I'm digging the Tablo review. I have an iView STB3500II but the Tablo looks much better. Thanks for the great channel.
Wow-- it's shocking about WGBH--they were always considered one of the cornerstone stations of PBS along with WNET in NYC. It's amazing to learn they would rather go on low VHF, which many viewers wouldn't be able to get, rather than channel share on a stronger signal.
I lost my steady signal last year. Also seeing that station on the list you shown pisses me off. And the scrubs only took $7 mil. I can pickup a pbs 50 miles away before I can get theirs at 20-25.
@@AntennaMan people need to tell FCC low band VHF channels need to run more power than they do. Saw many of them on low band operate 3k watts when they need to operate at least 10k, 25k and or 50k watts because FM stations may cause interference also since there's a number of FM stations that operate 25k, 50k, 100k, and even more but maybe the FCC should require FM stations to reduce horizontal power and or transmit vertical only may help. Sure there is FM traps but how many people would try it?
@@AntennaMan why aren't you telling people that vhf has longer range, goes around hills, trees buildings better? Yes the antenna is bigger because the wavelength is 10x longer. You know what means...more bandwidth like 10x more. 8k TV won't be a problem. Vhf isn't new. You are speaking like vhf came out of nowhere. Are you mad because the small uhf antenna solution was easy to work with? Vhf channel were still there. Don't blame PBS for getting paid to switch to a better channel. Oh in our town. PBS stayed...the ABC affiliate got paid to drop their 2nd uhf transponder. So, what should we do about that when non-pbs channels do it? Boycott Dancing with the Stars? Bachelor? Survivor? Chicago Fire? Ahhh I know...let's blame Oprah...no can't do that...oh Martha Stewart...she's a convicted felon and white...yeah thats it.. Martha screwed it up.
@@bbranett2188 the FCC gave a number of Low Band VHF stations like around 3,000 watts. Back when channel 2 - 6 analog 100,000 watts, and channel 7 - 13 analog 316,000 watts. For Low Band VHF to overcome interference they need to operate more power. Low Band VHF really needs to run at least 10,000 watts or more.
@@AntennaMan Trust me, that's rich "Liberals" for you, Smile to your face while they hide their steely knifes in their sleeves to put it into your back.
What goes around comes around , the competition is going to be fierce in Broadcasting the next few years , people will remember those stations who sold out .
What really surprised me was that they sold the flagship WGBH (2) instead of the adjunct WBGX (44), basically putting specialty channels on the easier channel to receive, and the main attractions on the VHF-Low. Of course, the real problem is the ridiculous power levels allowed on Low-VHF - 10KW. It should be 50 or 100KW. It seems that PBS stations in major cities are cash cows for their administrators. I get three PBS stations where I live. Detroit, Toledo and Bowling Green. I give to the one in BG.
I never cared for PBS, but even so - its been valuable to others and the world doesn't revolve around me (dammit) and these PBS stations should have considered their audience - the ones who line their pockets with donations. Its the right, ethical thing to do. But what do I know. I'm old school where I think a man's word is his bond and an agreement made with that word and a handshake is sealed deal. It may be outdated thinking but ethics worked well in the past.
Welcome to the new (fucked up) world. Government and Corporate America are completely devoid of ethics while trying to paint a picture that they are ethically driven....
I've been dealing with this for years from Milwaukee's PBS station; they took a high VHF channel originally, but had a UHF sister station that at least softened the blow (along with a UHF translator in-market). They merged the UHF sister onto the high VHF and took off the translator, so 50 miles away from the transmitter, I can't get them and they're cable-only for me, and they also screwed up their cable coverage so one of their subchannels is unavailable (and their engineering staff is stuck in a rock and a hard place because their owners and the station's fundraising organization have been feuding for years). Thank goodness the Green Bay station has always been UHF, is run by the state and doesn't allow their fundraising organization to meddle, and had no interest in a VHF bumpdown.
(Re: 38 WPNE Green Bay) -They may have been unable to benefit from the auction. Only three UHF DTV stations are north of them - for hundreds of miles. No need to move.
@@user-lj5ri3gp5oIn Sheboygan...all the other stations come in just fine. Them and WIWN (which was expected since they were dealt a lousy FCC hand and have done everything they can since they're stuck on VHF 5) are the only ones that aren't able to come in.
@@1L6E6VHF They improved from 42 to 25 in Green Bay's reallocation, so they came out pretty well, and the WECB is a pretty good steward overall of PBS Wisconsin and Wisconsin Public Radio.
@@user-lj5ri3gp5o Blast. Dang. I was hoping I could get a second antenna to aim towards Milwaukee to get some of those PBS stations because they used to have the best shows. I'm just over the border in northern McHenry County. I'm wondering if this low VHF thing is why the Chicago stations have gone since summer hit. I was thinking it was from the heat, humidity and leaves on the trees (my antenna is in the attic). I was getting the station in really well last year, but now it's hit and miss if it comes in.
Excellent presentation Antenna Man! I ditched my antenna a few years ago but continue supporting my local PBS station because I can stream Masterpiece and other great content.
WOW. What a wake up call that video is. NJ really did it to us! Thanks for that link. Between Ch50 WNJN and 52 WNJT going off the air on their own towers and now faking it by channel sharing with WNJB and WNJS. The founders of NJN picked those four locations to COVER the whole state at once. After 9-11 WNJN was the ONLY decent tv channel for the residents of NYC to get their news when they broadcast WABC from their tower on first mountain in Little Falls, NJ. Former Gov Christie laid off a great team and hired WNET to provide programming then sold channel 50 and 52 to the FCC for a total of about $332 MILLION. What happened to all that money? Not to mention that now WHYY in Philly is now channel sharing with some infomercial channel WMCN.1 thru 4.
@@AntennaMan Damn Governor Krispy Kreme!! Wondering of Governor Murphy knew about this. He restored everything else that got cut by the previous administration...
One problem with that low VHF antenna series that you recommend is that birds like to perch on the longer elements and will actually break them. My first antenna lasted less than 10 yrs. My parents have an old antenna from the 80's with looped elements that have stood the test of time but I can't find anything like it these days.
WGBH and WSBE are my PBS affiliates. I am lucky I have a decent VHF antenna, but I have friends who aren’t as fortunate, and can’t understand why I would suggest such a large antenna to help them, because I unknowingly said our area has all UHF and a couple HiVHF a few years ago the first time I helped them!
PBS in Eugene Oregon for years was only on cable tv in the 1970's. We had 2 channels, one out of Corvallis and the other from Salem. Eugene did get PBS reception from Corvallis and a low power translator. Late 80's Eugene was granted a PBS station as the Salem station relocated to Bend Oregon. Oregon Public Broadcasting(PBS in most of the state.) would not be in this situation and the uproar would be deafening. Sad to hear that cord cutters some major cities can't see PBS anymore , I feel bad for Fred Rogers.
I rarely say this because much of what is reported in general is either known, easily known, or bs, or extremely subjective and bias, but this was a great bit of investigative reporting and a true eye opener about a topic I truly did not know about and had never heard about this governmental undertaking. Just like was said, there needs to be transparency, particularly it it involves government agencies and non profit organizations. The amount of money that was thrown around is staggering and it’s frankly dirty in that a not for profit station that ask for donations to provide programming that often puts on programming that exposed government fraud, big business bureaucracy and purports to represent the minority opinions and underserved groups is profiting from the samee we type of under the table activities. I guess you wont see this on frontline. Great upload.
I’ve gotten an email from WGBH saying they have applied for more broadcasting power. As it is, I’ve put up a different antenna and tried out a variety of preamps, and still can’t pull it in reliably. You are right, it is very noisy for what is a decent signal strength. So my HDHomerun is reporting it at 50% signal quality at 93% signal. Obviously, this is leading to a steady stream of drop outs. Compare with WBZ 20 which is giving me 100% quality at the same signal strength (at the moment.)
I caught WGBH about a month ago-in south Florida! WSBE (RF 2) was better. If you would like a photo or two, email me at cd050659 [at] gmail [dot] com.... I have photos of a channel roster, Boston right alongside Miami channels 😁
Another inciteful video. VHF was dropped around 40 years ago here in the UK but other European countries continued to used it for decades afterwards...I've never bought a branded computer I just make my own though I do have 2 x 2012 mac mini's just an excellent and reliable silent pc for mac and Windows
I miss the days of analog TV when I could get tens of channels, albeit with a little static but still. Could get Baltimore stations, DC, York, etc. 3 or 4 were PBS stations. Imagine how much money they've been making over their lifetime.
Those were the days my friend and I thought they would never end, as the song goes. Once digital hit, gone were all distant TV signals. Used to get both Portland & Seattle directly OTA, snowy at times, but watchable. Now nothing distant will lock.
@@patrickmartin4996 I could get stations from Madison, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Chicago and South Bend besides the Milwaukee and Green Bay stations (and Wausau when the trop effect was strong). Now I'm lucky if I can get anything across the lake from Grand Rapids.
We had a channel swap in the Nashville market back in the early 70's. ABC affiliate WSIX (now WKRN) was on VHF 8 and the local educational PBS TV station WDCN (now WNPT) was on VHF 2. WSIX wanted to move to VHF 2, so that they would be in the same lower channel area as the NBC and CBS affiliates. The deal that was cut, which was approved by the FCC, is that WSIX would provide a transmitter and tower for WDCN and maintenance of such in perpetuity, regardless whomever who owns WSIX. Fast forward to the channel repack and WNPT participated in the repack and moved to VHF 7 from VHF 8 to get a new broadcast antenna and transmitter. Now their signal is worse than it was when it was on VHF 8. It is always all about the money.
Joan and Ray Croc donated 100's of millions of dollars to pbs. Ironically, pbs chooses to disable comments on its yt channels. Makes me wonder what Public means in pbs.
My local PBS station is now channel-sharing with a local religious station. Actually helped signal quality (after the long drawn out channel change delays due to "recent events"). Downside now is since there are 3 1080i and 2 480i subchannels on one channel, image quality is somewhat reduced - but usually looks fine.
WHEN I WAS YOUNG TV WAS JUST STARTING .SO WE HAD NONE& I DIDN'T MISS IT. BUT I ENJOYED MY FRIENDS & FAMILY. IF ALL TV SHUT DOWN I WOULD NOT MISS THE LIES,MURDERS ETC. BUT I'D STILL ENJOY EACH DAY A LOT MORE.
The library has LOTS of DVDs to check out for free. One nearby town library even maintains still even shelves many tapes. Yes, I do still have a vhs machine. Then there's a ton of free stuff on RUclips. Documentaries and movies too.
Man, I just discovered your channel, and have watched just there videos so far. I just got SERIOUSLY schooled! Like, nearly everything I thought I knew was wrong! Wow. I have to watch the rest of the videos, I must know more! - Paul, Bensalem PA
Hey hi Tyler just told someone about you and am glad to see your still looking good and healthy. Thank you for your enlightenment, you sir are awesome. Old ladies like know these things. :)
Thanks Tyler for always calling this stuff out! It's sad that WGBH has sold out its viewers. When I was a kid I think it was on 13. But I have a few questions, and feel free to redirect if I have missed something... Is VHF 2-7 really that bad? Years ago this was just fine. Also, what is "channel sharing"? How would that work if both stations want to broadcast at the same time?
Richard Forester, 2-6 (Low VHF), Big antenna elements, trash for TV broadcasting. 7-13 (High VHF), between low V & high V is a lot of different radio services. The VHF TV band is not consecutive. 14-36 (UHF)
Put the shared carrier on a sub-channel. In Los Angeles they share channels All the sharing goes to a sub-carrier of the main channel and they call it a MUX. KABC and KRCA share on sub-carriers of channel 7. Same thing for KCET and KLCS on sub-carriers of channel 28.
Thank you Tyler, I suspect this is what the local PBS station did in Jacksonville Florida. We have been a strong supporter of PBS however, reception got worse shortly after a new president came on board. I need to check the site to see of they sold out on the auction. Tom S.
Low VHF = lowband VHF which is 55-82 MHz, which is great for long distance propagation, but terrible for multi-path and interference as mentioned in this video. If you only have a tiny UHF indoor antenna, it ain't going to work. You need a super channel master antenna on your roof if you are any distance away from the transmitter.
Luckily, we still have PBS. In my opinion, this whole selling of spectrum should be illegal. The spectrum is public property and the phone carriers should be forced to pay rent, not be able to buy it. This would be much fairer and reduce the government debt.
My local PBS station took the buyout and just cut OTA completely. They kept a cable presence only; basically "Let them eat cable". I managed to tune my antenna and amps to pick up another distant station--a better one, with four subs--but it still grinds my guts. I think of the large rural area that suddenly lost PBS. Some of those houses have dirt floors; they can't afford cable but they still have an old antenna and their decoder box, so that's their window on the world. (Give me your list of what's wrong with PBS, and I'll double it, but on most days it's as good and often better than commercial OTA.) My old local, BTW, was a university station. They claimed the buyout money was going to fund scholarships. Probably will, for football players, and the coaches they need to taken them to finals, and a nice scoreboard for the stadium.
And this video of how the federal government is spending tax dollars is posted the day before your federal income tax returns are due. Think about it as you write out your checks.
This is weird news. We were told TV had to get off VHF because it was too valuable spectrum for cell phones, because VHF has better reach than UHF. Indeed, our local channel 6VHF we used to get with simple rabbit ears cannot be received sometimes, now that it is in low UHF- 16, same transmitter location. Of course, the change was from analog to digital at the same time, so one cannot compare fairly. And FM radio still sits in low VHF, some with a reach of a hundred miles or so with 100kw power. So, if low VHF has already been auctioned to cellphones as we are told, how can they bring TV back in there? If you are right, thanks for the heads up, but nothing is making sense right now.
WGBH is a total outlier for a station. They are the primary producer of content for PBS. I believe this is their primary business and the local station is a less important part of their organization.
I cut the cable in 2006. No TV either as I found no need. I streamed PBS programs for awhile then hit a paywall if I didn't watch a program within 2 weeks of its streaming date. I'm a long retired bench FCC licensed RF tech that serviced some antennas here. It is amazing of the shenanigans that are in the reshuffle of the RF bands. Sounds like in the David Sarnoff days.
Great video Tyler.....I believe the FCC also should be called out for not providing funds for the public to replace the outdoor antennas they purchased so they can pick up low-V in markets where this occurred....when the digital transition occurred up until the repack many homeowners paid hundreds of dollars to have outdoor antennas installed that were designed for frequencies in their market......now the FCC comes along and encourages the broadcasters to change frequencies in that market and compensates the broadcasters big time for moving! What about compensating all the people who now have to replace their outdoor antenna? In fact, I just noticed that we have a new low-V in our market here on Long Island, NY (Virtual 33, RF 3).....fortunately my outdoor antenna is over 25 years old and as you know was designed for channels 2-83, so I pick up this new channel very well......but other members of the public who bought antennas designed for Hi-V and UHF which worked in our market prior to the repack may not be so lucky to pick up channel 33......also don't you think PBS viewers in Boston area should be compensated by FCC to replace their antennas so they can receive PBS low-V broadcasts? After all, people who are using OTA are trying to save $ and not so highly compensated as those WGBH employees on the list in you video! I doubt highly that any of those people are using an outdoor antenna......
Back in the analog days I remember channel 2 was the worst because of the ghosting because of the multpath interference, and also from interference from the 6 metre ham radio band. I feel bad for anybody who watches a TV station that relocated to channel 2. An additional incentive is that low band VHF requires less transmitting power which means paying less to the power company.
The auction and repack made much needed bandwidth available to the wireless carriers. T Mobile was the clear winner in the auction and is the reason T Mobile coverage has increased significantly. If this auction didn't happen data plans wouldn't be as cheap as they are now. Thanks to t mobile the wireless phone industry has become much more competitive!
Hi Tyler: Thank you for this comprehensive, eye-opening video. I am happy you covered Dell as well. Encouraged by you, I have installed a Philips wing antenna in the attic. We are about 30 miles away from Boston and receive WGBH unreliably. I have to check the exact RF channel it is received on.
If you are interested I have some research papers on why low VHF is not a good choice for DTV transmission. I provided those to the chief engineer at WTVF (channel 5) in Nashville when they were deciding on whether to stay on RF channel 5 or move to UHF. They decided to stay on RF channel 5 and then found that many of their viewers within the Nashville metro area could not get good reception. So, although repeaters are supposed to be limited to 15 KW they got the FCC to let them run a 100 KW repeater on RF channel 50 from the same location as their RF channel 5 transmitter. When the channel repack came along they moved to RF channel 36 and got rid of the RF channel 5 transmitter. I realize that low VHF signals bend around the curvature of the earth to some extent and so may be better for some viewers in fringe areas but impulse noise and other interference sources are a problem in urban areas and fringe areas with interference sources have problems as well.
When I was a kid, one of these Beg-a-thons on my local PBS station implied, if you're watching this station and not donating, you are stealing from this station!
WGBH makes a huge amount of content that is syndicated nationally, while continuously outperforming the other boston npr/pbs, further, a lot of organizations match donations during their fundraising drives. I listen to a lot of WGBH and feel like a half mill for their CEO is totally cool
Right on, Tyler. I dropped my donation to WQED and wrote them telling why. There were pleading responses which were garbage. WQED depends on their cable outlets but they lack the multiple channel spread they had.
Much appreciated all the OFF AIR info you divert unheard of time & effort for the common man so CATV/SAT viewer can get it CA$Hless ( THANKS TYLER) P.S. THAT TABLO DVR & FIRESTICK fairly comparable? I saw a external hard drive on video hope that isnt needed
Tell me about it! WGBH's HD signal has been impossible to receive, and despite getting a power increase, have yet to implement it. We've been reduced to SD reception, or pay to get lousy overcompressed HD from a cable company. Time for me to send another email to member services asking when they[re getting that new transmitter on the air...
We've got two PBS stations here in the Atlanta market. One of them just switched channels due to the repack, but luckily I can still get it. It's antenna is on top of Stone Mountain, and I'm only about 10 miles away.
The transition seemed to work fine in Philadelphia. My mom lives an hour out of the city and has had the same antenna for 40 years, and the rescan worked with no problems.
You're still getting WPVI and WJWP *because* your antenna is 40 years old. Almost all antennas from that era were designed for channels 2 through 83 (Yes, 83!)
Yep... The public should not be subsidizing TV. Channels are clearly able to be successful on their own. Further, all it's become is a Leftist propaganda station, thus it doesn't even serve the public good anymore. It should be destroyed.
Antenna Man: Have you ever worked in the Engineering Department of a TV or Radio Station? Do you hold an FCC Commercial Operator License? What class? How about an amateur radio license? You left out a few things in your posting about PBS and the auction. For starters - the money, while being distributed by the FCC, came from the wireless carriers (such as AT&T and Sprint) - as a result of a "reverse auction". The size of the compensation was determined by the technical desirability of the frequency occupied by the licensee and by the geographic location. You also did not mention how many PBS stations moved to VHF low. 8 PBS stations out of 330 moved to VHF Low Band. Some moved up in frequency. Of the stations that went "dark" - many cited the lack of viewer support and budget deficits as significant contributing reasons for their decisions.
This is just a touch of what appears to be a huge FCC give away of our money. Many of these stations on this list were either duplicating PBS services in the same market, or they just held licenses. How many PBS outlets do you really need in Philadelphia showing the same programing content and fighting for your pocketbook? As to going to VHF Lo, some of those stations serve hilly areas where UHF doesn't cover too well. VHF-Lo, on the other hand is far better suited for very hilly or mountainous areas, and also enjoy a lower transmitter electric bill if permitted to cover the same area of transmission. In fact, they may reach viewers who were never reached before in the shadows of the mountains. Low band VHF bends around mountains that UHF can't do at all. Up in the berkshires of Massachusetts, if you lived near a mountain, an antenna mounted a few feet from the ground picked up VHF signals originating on the other side of the mountain that were NOT available with the antenna mounted higher. FM too. But aside from that, it appears the FCC HAS been doing a questionable giveaway to broadcasters. For example, as you know, each station ordered to repack could be reimbursed for their expenses. Keep in mind they got new transmitters and antennas out of the deal courtesy of us taxpayers. On the surface, this appeared like a reasonable expense for having to free up the top portion of the UHF band for the Telcoms, but its actual execution was highly suspect to me. For example; In our area alone 3 stations were repacked. WAVY went from operating Channel 31 to 19 WHRO went from operating Channel 16 to 31 WTKR went from operating Channel 40 to 16 Considering these station transmitters are co-located within a mile, and in fact 2 stations share the same tower, do you see an issue? Repacking 1 station can cost taxpayers 2 or 3 Million as referenced with some of the reimbursement requests that have been recently posted in some of the FCC files. So in theory, the 3 stations above could be reimbursed for their channel change, unless they requested that move themselves, which is doubtful. If we assume they did not request their channel reassignment and this was ordered by the FCC, they could each be reimbursed, costing us taxpayers up to 9 Million. So look again at the execution. Notice that ONLY 1 STATION, WTKR, HAD to move to free up the upper UHF band. They could have moved from 40 to 19, vs. 16. The other stations were already in compliance and could have retained their previous channels!!! Again, their towers are co-located so there's no logic for ALL of this flip flop of channels between 3 stations when only 1 move was really necessary. It appears us taxpayers may have footed the bill for these additional channels to get new antennas and transmitters at the tune of possibly 4 to 6 million. Now I fully understand that the telcom's initially funded the govt. for releasing the top portion of the UHF band, but does that mean that all these broadcasters now get new equipment? ULTIMATELY, the total expense of this wasteful repacking falls on the consumer. The telcoms will raise their rates for the Telcom's expense to purchase the UHF band, and broadcasters now get new transmitters and antennas! Great deal for all of the broadcsters, but WE the consumer and taxpayer ultimately footed the bill for these big conglomerates to get ALL new broadcasting equipment!! I see this as a huge giveaway of our tax money under our very noses to big businesses, yet no one has addressed this expense. Why should I help purchase new transmitters and tower Antennas for all 3 stations when only the move of 1 station was actually needed? And I STILL have to watch their commercials!! My local stations should thank me for contributing to their new, unneeded equpiment. Now multiply this situation to other markets. Were 2/3s of the repacks and their reimbursed cost really unnecessary? Who has our back on this one? Apparently no one. To get this information, I simply went to the FCC files and inspected the documents. The reimbursement documents I found were surprising. Not all FCC records are being updated in a timely fashion though. Check this out for yourself, it's all on-line.
They "funded" this buyout, but did it even come close to refunding the gov't (inflation-adjusted) for the fiber optic upgrade funding that they ran off with 40 or 50 years ago? We need some sort of regulatory oversight of these telcom companies, and we need to get anti-trust legislation involved to break up the biggest ones and increase their competition. We're getting raked over the coals by these billion dollar conglomerates and there's literally nothing we can do about it...
@@c182SkylaneRG You should contact your local representative. And if they do nothing then vote them out of office. The reason I posted what I did was to make more people aware that big busness continues to control our public airwaves for their own profit rather than for the public interest, and they apparently also take our tax money to purchase new equipment thanks to the FCC. Selling off part of the UHF band limits the opportunity for independent operators. Allowing 1 company to simulcast over 3 channels using the same tower further limits opportunities for independent operators in any given area and shouldn't be permitted. The FCC, in my opinion, is simply not on the side of the consumer and it's mismanaged our airwaves. We lost the frequency channels 70-83 many years ago on a sell out. And just before 2000 when stations went digital, that would have been an excellent time to re-pack all channels to the lowest part of the band, AND to allow them to operate adjacently, which they allow now. If that had been done, that would have eliminated this current, disruptive and expensive repacking in most markets. Also, they dropped the maximum transmitter power of stations. Instead of a UHF station operating with 5 million watts max under the old analog rules, the new limit was set to 1 Million so when these stations went digital, people in rural areas lost their stations. We can and should complain to our local representatives. When we don't, we allow cable to have the advantage and lose our independent voice.
I used to be a fan of PBS many years ago, but their organization has become so anti consumer with their viewers and cutting on original productions. Our PBS station is on VHF Ch 9, which is constantly freezing and showing a blank screen in our local area.
So far, no PBS station in Chicago and NW Indiana moved to VHF. I was sad when the City Colleges of Chicago decided to go off the air completely with WYCC. They carried certain programs that WTTW wouldn't. WYIN out of NW Indiana only covers the southern part of the Chicago market, due to their signal coming out of NW Indiana. Since the repack, WYIN's signal can not move to Chicago, due to having to protect WWME-CD out of Milwaukee Wisconsin, both stations on RF 17. So we lost a PBS station. Though Milwaukee PBS is on RF 8, many people complain that they can't get them, and was using a UHF translator to reach those closest to Milwaukee. They were forced to shut off the UHF translator, and decided to put up a VHF translator on RF 10 (their original analog channel). Milwaukee PBS decided to shut off their UHF station, WMVT, and channel share with WMVS, their sister station.
In theory, WYCC still lives on as a subchannel on WTTW's transmitter, broadcasting FNX (First Nations Experience), virtual channel 20.1, RF channel 25.7.
WYIN also can’t move to Chicago because of WTTW being dominant in the Chicago market. WYCC lost its member status to PBS before WTTW bought them out...
@MisterUptempo yes, it's still on the air, but it's not anywhere near the original WYCC @@JustinColeYT1 WTTW being the dominant PBS station has nothing to do with why WYIN can not relocate their signal to Chicago. They applied to locate on the Sears Tower back in 2003. Both WTTW and the original WYCC filed oppositions to the FCC, using the discounts on programming, because WYIN is licensed to Gary Indiana, while they had to pay full price for much of the same programming. The FCC denied WYCC and WTTW's request, because WYIN meets the requirements for their license, and at the time, they could locate in Chicago on RF 17. The only reason WYIN withdrew their request, was because they could not afford to pay the lease after the first year. That was why they built out their digital transmission at their current site. Since the original WYCC went off the air, they have relooked at the idea of relocating their signal to Chicago. They might have to look at locating on a different building, instead of the Sears Tower and John Hancock buildings, since they charge high rent. Since there's no VHF-Hi channel that they can move to, and there's no open full market UHF channel available, they would have to go to 2 or 3, or 6. If WYIN can afford to relocate to Chicago, and decides to go to VHF-Lo, WTTW will need to complain to PBS, and make them pay full price for the programming. I don't know which markets off hand that have PBS stations licensed to the suburbs, but their signals serve the entire market. I do know the PBS stations in the New York market are all licensed to the suburbs, but most serve the entire market.
📡 Do you have reception problems? Consider an antenna recommendation from me below:
👉 www.antennamanpa.com/antenna-recommendations.html
6 177.5 175.25 180.75 Reallocated 175.25 180.75
7 184.5 182.25 187.75 182.25 187.75
8 191.5 189.25 194.75 189.25 194.75
9 198.5 196.25 201.75 196.25 201.75
9A 205.5 203.25 208.75 203.25 208.75
10 212.5 210.25 215.75 210.25 215.75
11[1] 219.5 217.25 222.75 217.25 222.75
12[1] 226.5 224.25 229.75 224.25 229.75;;;;;;;;; our VHF freqs in Australia VHF low has been discontinued here;; 9 and 9a ARE digital radio frequencies FOR DAB+ radio
Could you be able to tell me what addition to an Gary-Hoverman antenna could be made to get better VHF signals ??? I live in the greater Philadelphia near Lehigh valley area. Thanks
5:39 THIS is the reason why I don't donate money to charities...I donate food to my local food banks. Clothing and furniture to local Salvation Army, Stores etc... I also donate food and supplies to local pet shelters...but never money.
Thank you for donating to pet shelters. I appreciate it.
PBS is not a charity.
@@CubsNewscast but it is donation driven...with lots and lots of overhead as explained in the video...either way, I'm not donating to them..
*you mean the annual beg-a-thons?*
*yeah, agree...i can help more people*
*and charities locally and i can see the*
*results.*
@Steve 'o One time while dropping off a donation at a Goodwill store I noticed some real nice vintage items setting on top of a cabinet amongst the bins of donations as if they were specifically pulled out and set aside by someone. Another time I donated a pickup load of items to St Vinny's and the guy was throwing items from the back of my truck directly into the dumpster. Including valuable antiques. Now I only donate unwanted household items. Nothing of real value.
Tyler, you missed your calling. As much as I respect and benefit from your considerable knowledge of OTA broadcast reception, you are one heck of a investigative reporter. My jaw dropped when I learned how WGBH screwed their loyal, unsuspecting subscribers, and took a bundle of cash to support their astronomically bloated management salary structure.
Yes, WGBH sold out their over the air viewers. Shame on them. Maybe one day PBS will be defunded.
@@AntennaMan I would hope defunding was going to happen. But history tells me that the customers and middle class will always get the shaft. Those who know history are bound not to repeat blinders of history except the bureaucracy that claims to work for us all. The great American Lie. Thanks for letting us all know how we got hosed by the FCC.
@@AntennaMan They should have been defunded years ago, In Fact, Why should my tax dollars go these parasites who ask for you to give them donations, Frankly CPB/PBS That's one monopoly which should be scrapped and sold off piece meal.
That graphic associating the *Low VHF Band* with a trashcan was marvelous! LOL
As the time approached for repack Phase 4 (Boston area), we tried to explain to WGBH that moving to low VHF would make it _impossible_ for many people to receive their station unless they had one of the very few huge antennas left on the market today that is capable of picking up low VHF--and that the situation wouldn't improve just by increasing their transmitter power. Yes, the map showing the area within which they _can_ be received well would expand with more power, but it seemed lost on them that only the people inside that area who have the huge 6-8' wide antennas would be able to pick them up _at all_ . IMO the repack was the FCC's missed opportunity to move everybody OUT of low VHF, so that we could finally dispense with unwieldy low VHF antennas altogether.
Lots of these stations are doing the samething...but pbs selling out how sad going against everything the station USED to stand for...Shame on you PBS.......
VHF is better, longer range, more bandwidth available/ 8K HDTV ready, he failed to mention that
HAHAHA Nobody Watching! Works for me. PBS=CommieLibDems.
@@BigDogCountry But much more trustworthy than the lying Fox and trumptard stations.
You can watch a PBS station online for free
I guess no one wants 5g cell phones
PBS takes a paid vacation and never comes back.
*good riddance*
4k and 8k hdtv are coming. Vhf has 10 times the bandwidth. It's easy to measure this... compare antennas. He's not telling the whole story. More private stations have moved or just sold their uhf transponder outright. Vhf is always preferred. Goes through trees, around hills better and longer distance with the same power as uhf. He's just mad because his short arms can't manage a proper vhf/uhf antenna. Also he likely installed uhf only splitters and amplifiers. He needs to blame something.
I am simply going to deal with the channels I have. If they keep selling out from antenna TV, I am tired of chasing them. Goodbye! I will survive.
Good for you r4ts's PBS is the only thing worth watching. But everyone is out to fleece America!
You can still watch PBS live online
@@bazil4146 Not all the programs. Many are locked behind a paywall known as "Passport."
I installed my roof top antenna BEFORE digital TV. Basically, channels 2-13 were VHF and that's where all the networks were. (The antenna was on sale at radio shack for $25.) I did a quick "information" from my "front end" box (digital tuner/recorder) and found the NBC and Fox moved to UHF. ABC and CBS are on VHF (upper band). I'm about 40 air miles away from the stations.
Love those PBS stations that plead poverty, get taxpayers money, beg for donations and get foundation grants...Now this too! Grrr
scott S Don’t forget, taxpayer dollars (lots) also.
They don't plead poverty, their business model doesn't sell ads.
@@SynMonger Seems like every 2-3 months PBS would have a pledge marathon to keep funding programming or else doom and gloom.
PBS is what you get when you rely on the subscribers to stay afloat. Commercial TV relies on ads. So long as advertisers are willing to be associated with programming content, you got the $$$ to be profitable. With “commercial free” TV, programming and stations depend on patrons just to stay afloat (not to mention government subsidies). If your programming doesn’t attract viewers, it won’t attract donors...which is automatically a smaller pool of money. Also, frankly, all people are cheapskates, but more so the liberals who claim to love PBS. They still expect government to pay for it when they are majority dependent on individual donations to stay in business.
@ⅰи∂ㄩㄅ360, there's more truth to your comment than most would ever believe, PBS has been nothing but a propaganda and indoctrination network for the far left anti-American socialist democrats for many years, I quit watching that network in 2008 after I saw how they aggressively supported the anti-American, fraud, and Kenyan, Obama.
I guess it was true what the WGBH sign on used to say - “we will always need your help” lol
In your own quiet way you've done brilliant work.
Fred Rogers would be turning over in his grave.
Especially because the station he worked for WQED also sold out! It is a serious struggle here in the suburbs of Pittsburgh to be able to pick up QED. Had to buy a new antenna and I just barely get it.
Exactly what I was going to say. His life's work and congressional testimony were crucial to PBS keeping its funding, and now his own station sold itself out. Hard to believe.
Fred Rogers is dead? Since when?
@@mrjohnson281able qed was vhf before. Vhf has 10 times the bandwidth uhf has. Funny.... You can literally measure the difference by the size of the antenna requirements.
@@jamescarter3196 didn't sell out. They owned the uhf channel. Sold it, and also received a vhf channel that has 10 times the bandwidth. When 4K (8K, or 12K) TV comes, they will be ready. Vhf isn't new. Before HDTV came out, all major TV stations were Vhf. Why? Longer distance . In my area, an ABC affiliate sold one of their uhf transponders. They didn't bother recreating the channels that were on it. Pbs didn't change.
Allow me to slightly modify your comment... to paraphrase, "I'm not singling out PBS stations as a holes."
Don't know what I would do without to guide us through the ever changing signal situation. You always have the answer the question of the day. Thanks 🙏 Tyler without you we would be lost.
A couple of the stations in my area switched to VHF 1 low, one high, and I get them better than when they were UHF. In the analog days I could always get VHF channels 90 miles from my house with rabbit ears but barely receive UHF channels with a large outdoor antenna. The amount of power needed to transmit VHF is considerably lower than UHF for the same range. I do feel bad for people in apartments having to find a way to get a vhf antenna to fit in their apartments. I still believe that VHF is great for rural parts of the US. It is definitely shitty that WGBH Boston switched to VHF-lo. In South Korea Apartment building owners mount a TV antenna and then distributes the signal to each apartment instead of having a 200 antennas mounted improperly that could come loose and hurt someone.
I very much appreciate you getting this information out. And those who did take advantage of the reverse spectrum who, in turn, never really let their viewers (i.e. contributors) know about it should be ashamed. It happened here in Virginia. $182 million to take two Northern Virginia PBS stations off the air completely since they weren't the main PBS stations for Washington, D.C. So, when Virginia Public Media asks for money, I usually scream at my television under my breath. They took some of the money and bought two commercial FM's, turned them non-commercial, and lessened the options for good formats in Richmond. There's no reason to give a dime to a PBS station who cashed in back in 2017 if they did not offer complete transparency to their viewers and their communities.
Clickbait video
Sort by newest first and look at the comment above you
You sir are a RIOT! Informative and funny as always. Keep up the good work!
Because PBS cares so much for the economically disadvantaged...
Their shows ALWAYS were geared toward upper income, self satisfied "liberal" types....Because they CARE FOR THE POOR. 🤦♂️
@@jamesslick4790 ....that's right....they care nothing about you...
....you're confusing them with Fox "News"...
@@Art_Martial Triggered much? :D Last I checked, Fox News or any other conservative outlet didn't pull down TV stations or presidents on social media. No confusion about who did that here!
@@Chordonblue he wasn't a real President...so don't feel too bad.
Thanks Tyler! WQED screwed me, and they still ask for money, lol. I could not get a straight answer of why I could no long get them. I rescanned for weeks. Now I know, they will never see another dime from me. I thought PBS was for the little guy and a beacon of hope, yea, right!
Hi see my rrman987 entry about my good old days....
Same here,I live 22 miles from Pittsburgh no longer get WQED or other Pittsburgh PBS stations. Now watch PBS from West Virginia 40+ miles away.
That's what happens as they become more and more corporate and less and less public. Sad.
I bought a GE Pro Outdoor antenna at Walmart, roughly $50, similar design to a Yagi. I can now just barely pick up WQED from where I am in Natrona Heights. Signal strength is about 60% but sometimes at night it will cut out. The antenna is compact and the biggest VHF whip is maybe 5 feet. It is directional, so there was a lot of playing around involved. Best of luck to you all.
PBS & NPR are just indoctrination channels for extreme liberal content! Watch what your kids are seeing & protect them!
Charity is a multi-billion dollar industry.
5:39 THIS is the reason why I don't donate money to charities...I donate food to my local food banks. Clothing and furniture to local Salvation Army, Stores etc... I also donate food and supplies to local pet shelters...but never money.
They should all be taxed at the corporate rate along with religious organizations.
The multi-billion dollar charity industry has been severely abused more times than not 99% of the time, the majority of donations conveniently fall into the pockets of the CEO's and or those in control of receiving the charities. I only give to people that I personally see that need help and to the churches that I know that actually help the needy. Most of the animal humane society organizations that rely on charity are total scams that are connected to the far left socialist democrat party, that care less about the animals, they want that money for pushing their anti-American socialist agenda.
@@alanwylie8960 I donate to two charities through payroll deductions. One is NumbersUSA, because it's a conservative nonprofit. I also donate to an animal charity, but its a smaller organization based in Africa, dedicated to the eradication of poaching. This organization sends quarterly reports to donors to show what exactly they spend donations on. I never donate to those pet charities. Pets aren't endangered species, and they're a dime a dozen. The director of our local humane society has a huge salary, yet somehow there is never any money to hire staff. You're right about it being a scam.
So much for the “public broadcasting” in PBS.......
Actually low VHF stations used to be the most common back in the 50s and 60s. And low VHF did have an advantage back then. Analogue signals on low VHF usually can go farther than higher frequencies. That's why high VHF stations usually had more power.
Yep. I remember when the first UHF TV stations went on the air. They were horrible compared to VHF low or high. This video is all just PBS-bashing and not recognizing the reality of the world we live in concerning broadcast TV's decline in viewership.
Shouldn't the last sentence have said UHF broadcast at higher power due to the higher frequency losses?
That was true through the 80's and 90's. The thing that turned the situation in favor of UHF was the proliferation of electrical noise-producing gadgets in the last 50 years that interfere with low-VHF reception. If you live on a remote farm in Iowa, that's not a problem, but it makes low-VHF almost useless in a high-density urban setting. The poster didn't mention another fact: Not all the PBS stations put a "digital" UHF channel on the air to aid in the transition. Many just cut their old VHF transmitter over to digital on the same high-VHF channel they previously used for analog.
Yep, VHF low was 100k watts max, VHF high was 316K watts max, and UHF was 5M watts max- to get the same quality coverage area. BUT, UHF stations ran on a shoe string back then so most couldn't afford to pay the electric bill for 5M watt transmitters. Thus, they were harder to receive.
@@joewoodchuck3824 No, VHF Hi had 3 times the authorized power than VHF Lo.
Your point “Many countries no longer use low VHF...” is correct. I think almost every country outside of the USA dropped low V many many years ago. As you pointed out a really big antenna is needed for optimum reception and these are quite hard to find. And an indoor Low V antenna probably doesn’t exist.
Do keep in mind that many countries, especially in Europe, believe less television is better television.
Times change. I am an old guy and I remember when the network stations in bigger towns were on the low VHF TV channels. If there was an independent station they were up in UHF. I lived in an area that was late to get TV stations and all our stations were UHF. In those days most TV receivers did not have UHF tuners and needed an external UHF tuner. The tuners were not channelized. They had constant tune dials.
Thank you for this information !!!! We Canadians enjoy the PBS stations broadcast our way.
Many are subscribers and contribute to them. This is an eye-opener. This explains why lately we have had issues with the signals.
You're awesome, kid, and the work you are doing and the education you are providing is important and appreciated. I am in 89509 and I am ready for your help to pick the right chimney mounted antenna. We are apparently not affected by the FCC Repack, whatever that means.
Clicked on this with passing interest but surprised at the great content and links to additional information as I cut the cord a couple years ago (unfortunately no choice for internet but Comcast). Very nice work. Thanks for taking the time to put it out to the masses.
I worked for a local PBS affiliate, you're spot on! Too bad PBS isn't what it used to be- a station for the people.
Several stations in my area combined with each other and shut down some transmitters. Some small failing stations took the money and ran.
As for low-VHF, it depends on your situation whether it will be better for you. It may enable them to cover more area than UHF. But as you said, it might be more prone to interference. Most people won't realize that is happening, because with DTV, you either have a perfect picture, or none at all.
I think the way many station operators look at it is, the majority of their audience gets the signal from cable or satellite, and they don't really care about a few OTA viewers that might be lost.
The odd thing is, a few years earlier, they were trying to get TV to move up to UHF (during the DTV changover) so they could give VHF spectrum to land mobile use. Now they are getting squeezed from above to make room for more cell/data stuff. TV used to go all the way up to channel 80 as well. They want everyone to use cable or satellite.
Wow. I used to watch PBS daily. I was wondering where they went. So sad.
One more note about VHF low band. Back in the 50's we had 2 -15 ft long antennas on our roof with a switch. One antenna was tuned specifically for Ch 8 (90 mi) and the other for Ch 3 (60 mi) (it was a monster) The Ch 8 antenna picked up Ch 3 very poorly, even though the channel was closer. So for those with PBS stations now on VHF Lo band, you NEED a VHF low band antenna!! Most of the lower cost outside antennas on the market today are only good down to Ch 7. You need to spend the higher dollars and invest in a real ALL channel antenna that includes Lo Band. It will make all the difference between picking it up or not picking it up. And yes, they are LARGE! I'm sure Tyler can install it for you!
This is very interesting and not surprising. Every station I can pick up where I live took the money. Our PBS station WKLE46 in central Kentucky is infamous for its crappy reception unless you live close to the transmitter tower. If you live in Lexington or Paris nearby it's almost impossible to get get a signal. The Fox station WDKY56 is on the same transmitter tower and reception is consistently excellent. Why is that? On the FCC reception map, they are both listed as UHF. The tower they share is only 24 miles from my house.
EDIT: I think I may have found the answer: Channel 46 RX Strength: 73 dbuV/m versus Channel 56 RX Strength: 94 dbuV/m The last time I got one of those pleading donation calls, I told them when you boost your signal, I'll consider sending some money your way. Looks like they are not getting a dime from me.
When I was a kid our NBC station in Houston was on channel 2. A lot of people had trouble getting a clear signal on it and even on cable they moved it to channel 12 to improve reception. However when we put a TV antenna on the roof it was actually the sharpest and most vivid of them all with 11 and 13 being the next best. Sometimes tropo or the powerlines would cause some interference, but it wasn't all that bad. We also got channel 3 in Bryan 100 miles away. It was fuzzy, but watchable. If VHF Low doesn't come in well it means you have the wrong antenna. Sadly most antenna's out there today are not made for VHF Low.
Very true. I grew up 10 miles from NYC. The CBS station was on channel 2. We also had a rooftop antenna. Our experience was the same, channel 2 was one of the best channels in terms of reception. It's all about having the right antenna and having it set up properly.
yaaaayyyy!!!!! an intelligent person !!!!!!!
A lot of people don't even realize there's still broadcast tv. They've told me so. The cable companies are quite happy to perpetuate that myth so THEY can pick up the broadcast signal on their building roof then sell it to you even though it's originally a free signal. That's perilously close to fraud in my book.
FCC money = taxpayer money.
@Logan Paul did this include OTA tv?
PBS - The original grievance pimps.
@@bazlebreeze9938 execs at these station don't care about OTA they just want to use taxpayer and donator money to enhance their paycheck
@@ocpud2999 Massive IRS Audit Is What They Need And Hit Em` With A Windfall Profits Tax
@@PinBall3 sadly you would have to change their non for-profit tax status
Thanks for the update Tyler, all these continued realignments for broadcast tv is such a pain in the ass!
It's not just rescanning but having to delete all the channels you never watch every time!
Thanks again bud!
Whats chapping his nads is the tiny uhf antenna is not good by itself anymore. You need a vhf antenna also. They are pretty big unfortunately. But vhf reaches farther, passes through trees buildings terrain easier and has 10 times the bandwidth that uhf has.
Thank you for this video. I've been trying to figure out why the PBS stations in my area (Boston) were broadcasting in SD. I remember getting these stations in HD since it came out. Then with the spectrum shift , they went to SD. I have a decent antenna and receive these signals no problem just in crappy SD. Thanks again for the heads up.
They are still on the air and HD but just on a trash low VHF frequency. You need a big antenna to get them
@@AntennaMan Thanks Tyler...Just subscribed to your channel. I'm digging the Tablo review. I have an iView STB3500II but the Tablo looks much better. Thanks for the great channel.
Wow-- it's shocking about WGBH--they were always considered one of the cornerstone stations of PBS along with WNET in NYC. It's amazing to learn they would rather go on low VHF, which many viewers wouldn't be able to get, rather than channel share on a stronger signal.
I lost my steady signal last year. Also seeing that station on the list you shown pisses me off. And the scrubs only took $7 mil. I can pickup a pbs 50 miles away before I can get theirs at 20-25.
Great video Tyler. I appreciate you presenting the facts and whats really happening, PBS would never come out and say what's really going on.
And they're supposed to be serving the public not selling them out.
@@AntennaMan people need to tell FCC low band VHF channels need to run more power than they do. Saw many of them on low band operate 3k watts when they need to operate at least 10k, 25k and or 50k watts because FM stations may cause interference also since there's a number of FM stations that operate 25k, 50k, 100k, and even more but maybe the FCC should require FM stations to reduce horizontal power and or transmit vertical only may help. Sure there is FM traps but how many people would try it?
@@AntennaMan why aren't you telling people that vhf has longer range, goes around hills, trees buildings better? Yes the antenna is bigger because the wavelength is 10x longer. You know what means...more bandwidth like 10x more. 8k TV won't be a problem. Vhf isn't new. You are speaking like vhf came out of nowhere. Are you mad because the small uhf antenna solution was easy to work with? Vhf channel were still there. Don't blame PBS for getting paid to switch to a better channel. Oh in our town. PBS stayed...the ABC affiliate got paid to drop their 2nd uhf transponder. So, what should we do about that when non-pbs channels do it? Boycott Dancing with the Stars? Bachelor? Survivor? Chicago Fire? Ahhh I know...let's blame Oprah...no can't do that...oh Martha Stewart...she's a convicted felon and white...yeah thats it.. Martha screwed it up.
@@bbranett2188 the FCC gave a number of Low Band VHF stations like around 3,000 watts. Back when channel 2 - 6 analog 100,000 watts, and channel 7 - 13 analog 316,000 watts. For Low Band VHF to overcome interference they need to operate more power. Low Band VHF really needs to run at least 10,000 watts or more.
@@AntennaMan Trust me, that's rich "Liberals" for you, Smile to your face while they hide their steely knifes in their sleeves to put it into your back.
What goes around comes around , the competition is going to be fierce in Broadcasting the next few years , people will remember those stations who sold out .
Thank you for covering this. Your Low VHF Band garbage graphic had me howling. Has PBS or the FCC responded to you?
What really surprised me was that they sold the flagship WGBH (2) instead of the adjunct WBGX (44), basically putting specialty channels on the easier channel to receive, and the main attractions on the VHF-Low.
Of course, the real problem is the ridiculous power levels allowed on Low-VHF - 10KW. It should be 50 or 100KW.
It seems that PBS stations in major cities are cash cows for their administrators.
I get three PBS stations where I live. Detroit, Toledo and Bowling Green. I give to the one in BG.
Love this channel, I just put an antenna in my attic and was wondering where PBS was. Thanks for telling us the TRUTH, PBS and Dell can forget my $$$.
you have the wrong antenna, vhf was always there
@@FreezyAbitKT7A they was on a uhf channel but when they took the buyout they are on a vhf low channel now, really no loss.
I guess keeping my 1980's outdoor antenna in my attic kept me from losing WQED.
hes complaining about having half of an antenna
I never cared for PBS, but even so - its been valuable to others and the world doesn't revolve around me (dammit) and these PBS stations should have considered their audience - the ones who line their pockets with donations. Its the right, ethical thing to do. But what do I know. I'm old school where I think a man's word is his bond and an agreement made with that word and a handshake is sealed deal. It may be outdated thinking but ethics worked well in the past.
you are correct,
PBS in the 1980's was the cat's meow. It's sunken to a new low.
Welcome to the new (fucked up) world. Government and Corporate America are completely devoid of ethics while trying to paint a picture that they are ethically driven....
I've been dealing with this for years from Milwaukee's PBS station; they took a high VHF channel originally, but had a UHF sister station that at least softened the blow (along with a UHF translator in-market). They merged the UHF sister onto the high VHF and took off the translator, so 50 miles away from the transmitter, I can't get them and they're cable-only for me, and they also screwed up their cable coverage so one of their subchannels is unavailable (and their engineering staff is stuck in a rock and a hard place because their owners and the station's fundraising organization have been feuding for years). Thank goodness the Green Bay station has always been UHF, is run by the state and doesn't allow their fundraising organization to meddle, and had no interest in a VHF bumpdown.
Here in Lake Geneva, it stinks for antenna reception...
Good luck to you in Milwaukee.
(Re: 38 WPNE Green Bay) -They may have been unable to benefit from the auction. Only three UHF DTV stations are north of them - for hundreds of miles. No need to move.
@@user-lj5ri3gp5oIn Sheboygan...all the other stations come in just fine. Them and WIWN (which was expected since they were dealt a lousy FCC hand and have done everything they can since they're stuck on VHF 5) are the only ones that aren't able to come in.
@@1L6E6VHF They improved from 42 to 25 in Green Bay's reallocation, so they came out pretty well, and the WECB is a pretty good steward overall of PBS Wisconsin and Wisconsin Public Radio.
@@user-lj5ri3gp5o Blast. Dang. I was hoping I could get a second antenna to aim towards Milwaukee to get some of those PBS stations because they used to have the best shows. I'm just over the border in northern McHenry County. I'm wondering if this low VHF thing is why the Chicago stations have gone since summer hit. I was thinking it was from the heat, humidity and leaves on the trees (my antenna is in the attic). I was getting the station in really well last year, but now it's hit and miss if it comes in.
Excellent presentation Antenna Man! I ditched my antenna a few years ago but continue supporting my local PBS station because I can stream Masterpiece and other great content.
WOW. What a wake up call that video is. NJ really did it to us! Thanks for that link. Between Ch50 WNJN and 52 WNJT going off the air on their own towers and now faking it by channel sharing with WNJB and WNJS. The founders of NJN picked those four locations to COVER the whole state at once. After 9-11 WNJN was the ONLY decent tv channel for the residents of NYC to get their news when they broadcast WABC from their tower on first mountain in Little Falls, NJ. Former Gov Christie laid off a great team and hired WNET to provide programming then sold channel 50 and 52 to the FCC for a total of about $332 MILLION. What happened to all that money?
Not to mention that now WHYY in Philly is now channel sharing with some infomercial channel WMCN.1 thru 4.
Yes, NJTV sold out. I couldn't believe they tried duplicating the channel numbers to make it seem like it was on the consumer's end.
@@AntennaMan Damn Governor Krispy Kreme!! Wondering of Governor Murphy knew about this. He restored everything else that got cut by the previous administration...
One problem with that low VHF antenna series that you recommend is that birds like to perch on the longer elements and will actually break them. My first antenna lasted less than 10 yrs. My parents have an old antenna from the 80's with looped elements that have stood the test of time but I can't find anything like it these days.
thats funny my all band yagi has been there for years and no broken rods
ds
@@billman6364 does it pick up low VHF like channel 6 or 2?
@Michael Wayne Is there a guide you suggest?
Make one. It's all on the web.
WGBH and WSBE are my PBS affiliates. I am lucky I have a decent VHF antenna, but I have friends who aren’t as fortunate, and can’t understand why I would suggest such a large antenna to help them, because I unknowingly said our area has all UHF and a couple HiVHF a few years ago the first time I helped them!
PBS in Eugene Oregon for years was only on cable tv in the 1970's. We had 2 channels, one out of Corvallis and the other from Salem. Eugene did get PBS reception from Corvallis and a low power translator. Late 80's Eugene was granted a PBS station as the Salem station relocated to Bend Oregon. Oregon Public Broadcasting(PBS in most of the state.) would not be in this situation and the uproar would be deafening. Sad to hear that cord cutters some major cities can't see PBS anymore , I feel bad for Fred Rogers.
Wow the corruption and greed is ruining this country, feel like I woke again!! Thanks Tye☮️😎✌️
I rarely say this because much of what is reported in general is either known, easily known, or bs, or extremely subjective and bias, but this was a great bit of investigative reporting and a true eye opener about a topic I truly did not know about and had never heard about this governmental undertaking. Just like was said, there needs to be transparency, particularly it it involves government agencies and non profit organizations. The amount of money that was thrown around is staggering and it’s frankly dirty in that a not for profit station that ask for donations to provide programming that often puts on programming that exposed government fraud, big business bureaucracy and purports to represent the minority opinions and underserved groups is profiting from the samee we type of under the table activities. I guess you wont see this on frontline. Great upload.
I’ve gotten an email from WGBH saying they have applied for more broadcasting power. As it is, I’ve put up a different antenna and tried out a variety of preamps, and still can’t pull it in reliably. You are right, it is very noisy for what is a decent signal strength. So my HDHomerun is reporting it at 50% signal quality at 93% signal. Obviously, this is leading to a steady stream of drop outs.
Compare with WBZ 20 which is giving me 100% quality at the same signal strength (at the moment.)
I caught WGBH about a month ago-in south Florida! WSBE (RF 2) was better. If you would like a photo or two, email me at cd050659 [at] gmail [dot] com.... I have photos of a channel roster, Boston right alongside Miami channels 😁
Another inciteful video. VHF was dropped around 40 years ago here in the UK but other European countries continued to used it for decades afterwards...I've never bought a branded computer I just make my own though I do have 2 x 2012 mac mini's just an excellent and reliable silent pc for mac and Windows
I miss the days of analog TV when I could get tens of channels, albeit with a little static but still. Could get Baltimore stations, DC, York, etc. 3 or 4 were PBS stations. Imagine how much money they've been making over their lifetime.
Those were the days my friend and I thought they would never end, as the song goes. Once digital hit, gone were all distant TV signals. Used to get both Portland & Seattle directly OTA, snowy at times, but watchable. Now nothing distant will lock.
@@patrickmartin4996 I could get stations from Madison, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Chicago and South Bend besides the Milwaukee and Green Bay stations (and Wausau when the trop effect was strong). Now I'm lucky if I can get anything across the lake from Grand Rapids.
funny, they were VHF. Some are moving back because of longer range etc... try rabbit ears, rescan
We had a channel swap in the Nashville market back in the early 70's. ABC affiliate WSIX (now WKRN) was on VHF 8 and the local educational PBS TV station WDCN (now WNPT) was on VHF 2. WSIX wanted to move to VHF 2, so that they would be in the same lower channel area as the NBC and CBS affiliates. The deal that was cut, which was approved by the FCC, is that WSIX would provide a transmitter and tower for WDCN and maintenance of such in perpetuity, regardless whomever who owns WSIX. Fast forward to the channel repack and WNPT participated in the repack and moved to VHF 7 from VHF 8 to get a new broadcast antenna and transmitter. Now their signal is worse than it was when it was on VHF 8. It is always all about the money.
Joan and Ray Croc donated 100's of millions of dollars to pbs. Ironically, pbs chooses to disable comments on its yt channels. Makes me wonder what Public means in pbs.
& youtube ghosts your comments...hmmm
My local PBS station is now channel-sharing with a local religious station. Actually helped signal quality (after the long drawn out channel change delays due to "recent events"). Downside now is since there are 3 1080i and 2 480i subchannels on one channel, image quality is somewhat reduced - but usually looks fine.
WHEN I WAS YOUNG TV WAS JUST STARTING .SO WE HAD NONE& I DIDN'T MISS IT. BUT I ENJOYED MY FRIENDS & FAMILY. IF ALL TV SHUT DOWN I WOULD NOT MISS THE LIES,MURDERS ETC. BUT I'D STILL ENJOY EACH DAY A LOT MORE.
The library has LOTS of DVDs to check out for free. One nearby town library even maintains still even shelves many tapes. Yes, I do still have a vhs machine.
Then there's a ton of free stuff on RUclips. Documentaries and movies too.
Man, I just discovered your channel, and have watched just there videos so far. I just got SERIOUSLY schooled! Like, nearly everything I thought I knew was wrong! Wow. I have to watch the rest of the videos, I must know more!
- Paul, Bensalem PA
I suggest getting the Antenna recommendation from Tyler.I did and it helped me get the right Antenna for my area.I wasn't paid for this promotion.😂👍👊
Hey hi Tyler just told someone about you and am glad to see your still looking good and healthy. Thank you for your enlightenment, you sir are awesome. Old ladies like know these things. :)
Thanks Tyler for always calling this stuff out! It's sad that WGBH has sold out its viewers. When I was a kid I think it was on 13. But I have a few questions, and feel free to redirect if I have missed something... Is VHF 2-7 really that bad? Years ago this was just fine. Also, what is "channel sharing"? How would that work if both stations want to broadcast at the same time?
Richard Forester, 2-6 (Low VHF), Big antenna elements, trash for TV broadcasting.
7-13 (High VHF), between low V & high V is a lot of different radio services. The VHF TV band is not consecutive.
14-36 (UHF)
Put the shared carrier on a sub-channel. In Los Angeles they share channels All the sharing goes to a sub-carrier of the main channel and they call it a MUX. KABC and KRCA share on sub-carriers of channel 7. Same thing for KCET and KLCS on sub-carriers of channel 28.
Thank you Tyler, I suspect this is what the local PBS station did in Jacksonville Florida. We have been a strong supporter of PBS however, reception got worse shortly after a new president came on board. I need to check the site to see of they sold out on the auction. Tom S.
Low VHF = lowband VHF which is 55-82 MHz, which is great for long distance propagation, but terrible for multi-path and interference as mentioned in this video. If you only have a tiny UHF indoor antenna, it ain't going to work. You need a super channel master antenna on your roof if you are any distance away from the transmitter.
Glad I found this channel! I live in the Philly metro area so this channel’s content is very informative.
Wow, you have THREE TV stations there in lowband VHF: 2 WDPN, 4 WACP, 6 WPVI.
Luckily, we still have PBS. In my opinion, this whole selling of spectrum should be illegal. The spectrum is public property and the phone carriers should be forced to pay rent, not be able to buy it. This would be much fairer and reduce the government debt.
My local PBS station took the buyout and just cut OTA completely. They kept a cable presence only; basically "Let them eat cable". I managed to tune my antenna and amps to pick up another distant station--a better one, with four subs--but it still grinds my guts. I think of the large rural area that suddenly lost PBS. Some of those houses have dirt floors; they can't afford cable but they still have an old antenna and their decoder box, so that's their window on the world. (Give me your list of what's wrong with PBS, and I'll double it, but on most days it's as good and often better than commercial OTA.) My old local, BTW, was a university station. They claimed the buyout money was going to fund scholarships. Probably will, for football players, and the coaches they need to taken them to finals, and a nice scoreboard for the stadium.
And this video of how the federal government is spending tax dollars is posted the day before your federal income tax returns are due. Think about it as you write out your checks.
This is weird news. We were told TV had to get off VHF because it was too valuable spectrum for cell phones, because VHF has better reach than UHF. Indeed, our local channel 6VHF we used to get with simple rabbit ears cannot be received sometimes, now that it is in low UHF- 16, same transmitter location. Of course, the change was from analog to digital at the same time, so one cannot compare fairly. And FM radio still sits in low VHF, some with a reach of a hundred miles or so with 100kw power.
So, if low VHF has already been auctioned to cellphones as we are told, how can they bring TV back in there?
If you are right, thanks for the heads up, but nothing is making sense right now.
WGBH is a total outlier for a station. They are the primary producer of content for PBS. I believe this is their primary business and the local station is a less important part of their organization.
I cut the cable in 2006. No TV either as I found no need. I streamed PBS programs for awhile then hit a paywall if I didn't watch a program within 2 weeks of its streaming date. I'm a long retired bench FCC licensed RF tech that serviced some antennas here. It is amazing of the shenanigans that are in the reshuffle of the RF bands. Sounds like in the David Sarnoff days.
Great video Tyler.....I believe the FCC also should be called out for not providing funds for the public to replace the outdoor antennas they purchased so they can pick up low-V in markets where this occurred....when the digital transition occurred up until the repack many homeowners paid hundreds of dollars to have outdoor antennas installed that were designed for frequencies in their market......now the FCC comes along and encourages the broadcasters to change frequencies in that market and compensates the broadcasters big time for moving! What about compensating all the people who now have to replace their outdoor antenna? In fact, I just noticed that we have a new low-V in our market here on Long Island, NY (Virtual 33, RF 3).....fortunately my outdoor antenna is over 25 years old and as you know was designed for channels 2-83, so I pick up this new channel very well......but other members of the public who bought antennas designed for Hi-V and UHF which worked in our market prior to the repack may not be so lucky to pick up channel 33......also don't you think PBS viewers in Boston area should be compensated by FCC to replace their antennas so they can receive PBS low-V broadcasts? After all, people who are using OTA are trying to save $ and not so highly compensated as those WGBH employees on the list in you video! I doubt highly that any of those people are using an outdoor antenna......
What about us apartment tenants who depend on indoor antennas? Or attic? I'm on the second floor.
Back in the analog days I remember channel 2 was the worst because of the ghosting because of the multpath interference, and also from interference from the 6 metre ham radio band. I feel bad for anybody who watches a TV station that relocated to channel 2. An additional incentive is that low band VHF requires less transmitting power which means paying less to the power company.
Well that is how digital TV works. You need less power, probably more than the 10% that they use but not nearly as much as analog.
The auction and repack made much needed bandwidth available to the wireless carriers. T Mobile was the clear winner in the auction and is the reason T Mobile coverage has increased significantly. If this auction didn't happen data plans wouldn't be as cheap as they are now. Thanks to t mobile the wireless phone industry has become much more competitive!
This will only end when the mobile industry has ALL spectrum. Apparently the sky will fall if they don't get it.
Hi Tyler: Thank you for this comprehensive, eye-opening video. I am happy you covered Dell as well. Encouraged by you, I have installed a Philips wing antenna in the attic. We are about 30 miles away from Boston and receive WGBH unreliably. I have to check the exact RF channel it is received on.
Behold... The death of television. Well, over the air tv, anyway. LOL
If you are interested I have some research papers on why low VHF is not a good choice for DTV transmission. I provided those to the chief engineer at WTVF (channel 5) in Nashville when they were deciding on whether to stay on RF channel 5 or move to UHF. They decided to stay on RF channel 5 and then found that many of their viewers within the Nashville metro area could not get good reception. So, although repeaters are supposed to be limited to 15 KW they got the FCC to let them run a 100 KW repeater on RF channel 50 from the same location as their RF channel 5 transmitter. When the channel repack came along they moved to RF channel 36 and got rid of the RF channel 5 transmitter. I realize that low VHF signals bend around the curvature of the earth to some extent and so may be better for some viewers in fringe areas but impulse noise and other interference sources are a problem in urban areas and fringe areas with interference sources have problems as well.
Low VHF was great back in the analog days
When I was a kid, one of these Beg-a-thons on my local PBS station implied, if you're watching this station and not donating, you are stealing from this station!
WGBH makes a huge amount of content that is syndicated nationally, while continuously outperforming the other boston npr/pbs, further, a lot of organizations match donations during their fundraising drives. I listen to a lot of WGBH and feel like a half mill for their CEO is totally cool
also if more people donated they wouldn't need to generate funds like this, or you know, the president zeroing out funding for public broadcasting
Right on, Tyler. I dropped my donation to WQED and wrote them telling why. There were pleading responses which were garbage. WQED depends on their cable outlets but they lack the multiple channel spread they had.
Props to you!
PBS stations that keep logo bugs on the screen do not deserve your money anyways.
Which one sold out for only 10 million? suckers. I guess they don't really need our donations after all.
It is more likely that they need the money more than ever. With this COVID mess, I bet many people had to stop the donations.
You still pay taxes that funds PBS...
Thanks for keeping us informed!!!
Thanks Tyler it's always good for someone to tell the truth of what's going on in this country even this info.
Much appreciated all the OFF AIR info you divert unheard of time & effort for the common man so CATV/SAT viewer can get it CA$Hless ( THANKS TYLER) P.S. THAT TABLO DVR & FIRESTICK fairly comparable? I saw a external hard drive on video hope that isnt needed
Tell me about it! WGBH's HD signal has been impossible to receive, and despite getting a power increase, have yet to implement it. We've been reduced to SD reception, or pay to get lousy overcompressed HD from a cable company. Time for me to send another email to member services asking when they[re getting that new transmitter on the air...
after they get enough sustaining members
We've got two PBS stations here in the Atlanta market. One of them just switched channels due to the repack, but luckily I can still get it. It's antenna is on top of Stone Mountain, and I'm only about 10 miles away.
im 30mi away but the signal went from 55 to70
Thank you, Tyler!
This sounds like more Ajit Pai B.S., trying to throttle PBS out of existence.
The transition seemed to work fine in Philadelphia. My mom lives an hour out of the city and has had the same antenna for 40 years, and the rescan worked with no problems.
How are WDPN (MeTV) and 6ABC?
You're still getting WPVI and WJWP *because* your antenna is 40 years old. Almost all antennas from that era were designed for channels 2 through 83 (Yes, 83!)
Well that explains why I don't get it anymore in Kalamazoo MI area. Those bastards. Always screwing the customer in the name of money and profits.
Thanks for another great video Tyler
PBS should lose all government funding. Period.
Yep... The public should not be subsidizing TV. Channels are clearly able to be successful on their own.
Further, all it's become is a Leftist propaganda station, thus it doesn't even serve the public good anymore. It should be destroyed.
Antenna Man:
Have you ever worked in the Engineering Department of a TV or Radio Station?
Do you hold an FCC Commercial Operator License? What class? How about an amateur radio license?
You left out a few things in your posting about PBS and the auction.
For starters - the money, while being distributed by the FCC, came from the wireless carriers (such as AT&T and Sprint) - as a result of a "reverse auction".
The size of the compensation was determined by the technical desirability of the frequency occupied by the licensee and by the geographic location.
You also did not mention how many PBS stations moved to VHF low. 8 PBS stations out of 330 moved to VHF Low Band. Some moved up in frequency.
Of the stations that went "dark" - many cited the lack of viewer support and budget deficits as significant contributing reasons for their decisions.
This is just a touch of what appears to be a huge FCC give away of our money. Many of these stations on this list were either duplicating PBS services in the same market, or they just held licenses. How many PBS outlets do you really need in Philadelphia showing the same programing content and fighting for your pocketbook? As to going to VHF Lo, some of those stations serve hilly areas where UHF doesn't cover too well. VHF-Lo, on the other hand is far better suited for very hilly or mountainous areas, and also enjoy a lower transmitter electric bill if permitted to cover the same area of transmission. In fact, they may reach viewers who were never reached before in the shadows of the mountains. Low band VHF bends around mountains that UHF can't do at all. Up in the berkshires of Massachusetts, if you lived near a mountain, an antenna mounted a few feet from the ground picked up VHF signals originating on the other side of the mountain that were NOT available with the antenna mounted higher. FM too. But aside from that, it appears the FCC HAS been doing a questionable giveaway to broadcasters.
For example, as you know, each station ordered to repack could be reimbursed for their expenses. Keep in mind they got new transmitters and antennas out of the deal courtesy of us taxpayers. On the surface, this appeared like a reasonable expense for having to free up the top portion of the UHF band for the Telcoms, but its actual execution was highly suspect to me.
For example;
In our area alone 3 stations were repacked.
WAVY went from operating Channel 31 to 19
WHRO went from operating Channel 16 to 31
WTKR went from operating Channel 40 to 16
Considering these station transmitters are co-located within a mile, and in fact 2 stations share the same tower, do you see an issue?
Repacking 1 station can cost taxpayers 2 or 3 Million as referenced with some of the reimbursement requests that have been recently posted in some of the FCC files.
So in theory, the 3 stations above could be reimbursed for their channel change, unless they requested that move themselves, which is doubtful. If we assume they did not request their channel reassignment and this was ordered by the FCC, they could each be reimbursed, costing us taxpayers up to 9 Million.
So look again at the execution. Notice that ONLY 1 STATION, WTKR, HAD to move to free up the upper UHF band. They could have moved from 40 to 19, vs. 16. The other stations were already in compliance and could have retained their previous channels!!! Again, their towers are co-located so there's no logic for ALL of this flip flop of channels between 3 stations when only 1 move was really necessary. It appears us taxpayers may have footed the bill for these additional channels to get new antennas and transmitters at the tune of possibly 4 to 6 million. Now I fully understand that the telcom's initially funded the govt. for releasing the top portion of the UHF band, but does that mean that all these broadcasters now get new equipment? ULTIMATELY, the total expense of this wasteful repacking falls on the consumer. The telcoms will raise their rates for the Telcom's expense to purchase the UHF band, and broadcasters now get new transmitters and antennas! Great deal for all of the broadcsters, but WE the consumer and taxpayer ultimately footed the bill for these big conglomerates to get ALL new broadcasting equipment!! I see this as a huge giveaway of our tax money under our very noses to big businesses, yet no one has addressed this expense. Why should I help purchase new transmitters and tower Antennas for all 3 stations when only the move of 1 station was actually needed? And I STILL have to watch their commercials!! My local stations should thank me for contributing to their new, unneeded equpiment. Now multiply this situation to other markets. Were 2/3s of the repacks and their reimbursed cost really unnecessary? Who has our back on this one? Apparently no one. To get this information, I simply went to the FCC files and inspected the documents. The reimbursement documents I found were surprising. Not all FCC records are being updated in a timely fashion though. Check this out for yourself, it's all on-line.
They "funded" this buyout, but did it even come close to refunding the gov't (inflation-adjusted) for the fiber optic upgrade funding that they ran off with 40 or 50 years ago? We need some sort of regulatory oversight of these telcom companies, and we need to get anti-trust legislation involved to break up the biggest ones and increase their competition. We're getting raked over the coals by these billion dollar conglomerates and there's literally nothing we can do about it...
@@c182SkylaneRG You should contact your local representative. And if they do nothing then vote them out of office. The reason I posted what I did was to make more people aware that big busness continues to control our public airwaves for their own profit rather than for the public interest, and they apparently also take our tax money to purchase new equipment thanks to the FCC. Selling off part of the UHF band limits the opportunity for independent operators. Allowing 1 company to simulcast over 3 channels using the same tower further limits opportunities for independent operators in any given area and shouldn't be permitted. The FCC, in my opinion, is simply not on the side of the consumer and it's mismanaged our airwaves.
We lost the frequency channels 70-83 many years ago on a sell out. And just before 2000 when stations went digital, that would have been an excellent time to re-pack all channels to the lowest part of the band, AND to allow them to operate adjacently, which they allow now. If that had been done, that would have eliminated this current, disruptive and expensive repacking in most markets. Also, they dropped the maximum transmitter power of stations. Instead of a UHF station operating with 5 million watts max under the old analog rules, the new limit was set to 1 Million so when these stations went digital, people in rural areas lost their stations. We can and should complain to our local representatives. When we don't, we allow cable to have the advantage and lose our independent voice.
I used to be a fan of PBS many years ago, but their organization has become so anti consumer with their viewers and cutting on original productions. Our PBS station is on VHF Ch 9, which is constantly freezing and showing a blank screen in our local area.
Still picking up my PBS stations here in Baltimore and that's pretty impressive considering how heavy they are and at my age with my broken back.
So far, no PBS station in Chicago and NW Indiana moved to VHF. I was sad when the City Colleges of Chicago decided to go off the air completely with WYCC. They carried certain programs that WTTW wouldn't. WYIN out of NW Indiana only covers the southern part of the Chicago market, due to their signal coming out of NW Indiana. Since the repack, WYIN's signal can not move to Chicago, due to having to protect WWME-CD out of Milwaukee Wisconsin, both stations on RF 17. So we lost a PBS station. Though Milwaukee PBS is on RF 8, many people complain that they can't get them, and was using a UHF translator to reach those closest to Milwaukee. They were forced to shut off the UHF translator, and decided to put up a VHF translator on RF 10 (their original analog channel). Milwaukee PBS decided to shut off their UHF station, WMVT, and channel share with WMVS, their sister station.
In theory, WYCC still lives on as a subchannel on WTTW's transmitter, broadcasting FNX (First Nations Experience), virtual channel 20.1, RF channel 25.7.
WYIN also can’t move to Chicago because of WTTW being dominant in the Chicago market. WYCC lost its member status to PBS before WTTW bought them out...
@MisterUptempo yes, it's still on the air, but it's not anywhere near the original WYCC
@@JustinColeYT1 WTTW being the dominant PBS station has nothing to do with why WYIN can not relocate their signal to Chicago. They applied to locate on the Sears Tower back in 2003. Both WTTW and the original WYCC filed oppositions to the FCC, using the discounts on programming, because WYIN is licensed to Gary Indiana, while they had to pay full price for much of the same programming. The FCC denied WYCC and WTTW's request, because WYIN meets the requirements for their license, and at the time, they could locate in Chicago on RF 17. The only reason WYIN withdrew their request, was because they could not afford to pay the lease after the first year. That was why they built out their digital transmission at their current site. Since the original WYCC went off the air, they have relooked at the idea of relocating their signal to Chicago. They might have to look at locating on a different building, instead of the Sears Tower and John Hancock buildings, since they charge high rent. Since there's no VHF-Hi channel that they can move to, and there's no open full market UHF channel available, they would have to go to 2 or 3, or 6. If WYIN can afford to relocate to Chicago, and decides to go to VHF-Lo, WTTW will need to complain to PBS, and make them pay full price for the programming. I don't know which markets off hand that have PBS stations licensed to the suburbs, but their signals serve the entire market. I do know the PBS stations in the New York market are all licensed to the suburbs, but most serve the entire market.