NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/mensa/8985

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!news.claremont.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!vance
From: [e-mail] (Vance R. Haemmerle)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Re: Howard Stern
Date: 29 Dec 1992 23:20:23 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>In general, the traditional broadcast spectrum is full.  It may be
>"fuller" in your part of the country than you think.
>For example, the fact that your TV doesn't pick up a strong station on
>every channel is not sufficient to say the spectrum in your area isn't
>full because, by law, you can't have transmitters on adjacent
>TV frequencies in the same area (practical TV filters don't have
>sufficiently sharp frequency drop-offs to reject an adjacent channel).
>In other words, in any city, almost half of the channels will show
>nothing but snow with a modest antenna.  There are exceptions because
>some adjacent channels are not frequency-adjacent.
>

In Los Angeles there is a Channel 4 (NBC) and Channel 5 (Ind.).  The
break between low VHF and high VHF is between 6 and 7.  So they are
in adjacent 6MHz bands and I don't remember any interference problems.
(I don't live there now).  I think this was a problem with earlier
Television tuners, but is no longer true (i.e. look at cable systems).
The vestigial side-band transmission standard, with the space for
the FM audio signal works out nicely in minimizing interference.

Vance Haemmerle
[e-mail]