From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: FCC Call letters
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:53:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.013551.22041@e2big.mko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.211152.3865@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes...
>>>|>In article <1992Apr4.025604.11675@e2big.mko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>>>|>   ObUL:  Many ABC stations have Channel 7, because ABC upper management 
>>>|>   believed Channel 2-6 would be reassigned, and they wanted the lowest 
>>>|>   frequency (because lower frequencies were received more clearly on the 
>>>|>   more primitive equipment available).
>
>>Channel 7 is the lowest of the CONTIGUOUS VHF channels.  Channels below 7
>>aren't themselves contiguous but are split into two groups.  This is why
>
>Clarifying somewhat:  The VHF TV station groups 2-6 and 7-13 are widely
>separated in frequency, and in the old days of TV the difference in the
>abilities of the standard TV set to receive the high VHF band was rather
>worse than the low band, much like the ability of some older sets to receive
>UHF is worse than VHF.  This is why deliberately choosing Channel 7 would
>be unusual, if it was true.
>
>There is a gap between Ch. 4 and 5, but it is much smaller than the Ch 6-7
>gap, or 13-14.  The Ch. 4-5 gap isn't even wide enough for a TV channel.
>
>>I haven't seen any good explanation about Channel 1 here, so I'll give what I
>>have about it and hope for correction:
>
>Consider yourself corrected (if Cecil Adams is right, anyway).
>Cecil sez Ch. 1 was 44-50 MHz.
>
>Copied without permission from _The Straight Dope_ by Cecil Adams:
>
>Q: This has bothered me for a long time.  Why isn't there a Channel 1 on
>television?
>
>A:  It turns out there _was_ a Channel 1 once upon a time -- in 1945 to be
>precise, when the FCC first allocated broadcast television frequencies.  Later,
>however, the FCC repented its generosity and decided that TV was hogging too
>much of the broadcast spectrum (each TV channel requires 600 times as much
>bandwidth as an individual radio station does).  So the Channel 1 band (44-50
>MHz) was reassigned for use by people with mobile radios.  Considering how
>things have worked out, they would have done well to reassign Channels 2-13
>while they were at it, thus sparing the nation such horrors as Green Acres ...
>
>-Mike

I have a little doubting to do here:

Channel 2 is 54-60, the six-meter amateur band (which didn't exist in the
original 1945 proposal) is 50-54, and the mobiles are 44-50.  There were
radios designed to pickup FM on 44-54 before the designation of 88-108 where
it is today, and I personally saw several with both ranges.  It's clear that
the 44-54 was split in half to become the 6-meter amateur band to replace
the "stolen" 5-meter band and the 44-50 part is a good place for mobiles,
but why would channel 1 create a gap?  I believe that amateur radio operators
can confirm that their lobbying for a 6-meter band is partially responsible
for the loss of channel 1, whereas your version has it only taken over
completely by mobiles.  It just makes more sense that channel 1 was 48-54
which requires it to go away to satisfy both mobiles and amateurs.

Since there already is a gap between 4 and 5, why an additional gap between
1 and 2?  7-13 I believe is contiguous, and UHF 14-83 came later?

Side question: what is the current status of the highest of the UHF channels
from 83 down to something like 69-70?

Additional question:

Isn't there supposed to be a CB II band in the 4-5 gap?  (Also for R-C?)

ObUL: Dan Rather, aka Kenneth, doesn't know these frequencies.

ObRadio Factoid:

During the late '50's, satellites (sputnik, vanguard) used sw frequencies that
certain people claimed were triggering their r-c overhead garage door openers
when the satellite went overhead.

cjl (danger, 10,000 ohms)