The problem with that is that many of the articles don't have the characteristics of radio waves correct. Many writers are uneducated about the wattages about the TV stations and how long and short the waves are.

Many articles say that VHF DTV stations are having a harder time than UHF DTV stations. What the writers don't know is that many of the VHF DTV stations are using wattages that are OVER TEN TIMES LOWER than the UHF DTV stations are, yet the UHF stations are on channels that have shorter wavelengths compared with VHF stations on lower channels.

Some news websites claim that the problem with DTV signals on VHF is due to shorter wavelengths. That is incorrect. UHF wavelengths are shorter than VHF wavelengths.

As you go up in channel from 2 to 69, the wavelengths get shorter and shorter.

The problem with DTV on the VHF band isn't the waves, which are longer on that band than on the UHF band, it's because of the relatively reduced power compared to what the stations on the temporary UHF channels had been using until they gave up the UHF channels when they moved their digital signals back to the VHF band.

In January, KGTV-DT on channel 25 UHF was broadcasting at some 300kw, which is a fraction of a full powered UHF station, yet somehow, I got that signal from my house. When Feb 18 came, KGTV gave up its analog signal on 10, and moved its DTV signal to that channel, and powered down its transmitter to something like 20.7kw, less than 7 percent of its former analog power of 316kw maximum.

When KGTV moved back to the VHF band, it might have tried a signal of 75kw, one fourth of its UHF power, to reach just more viewers than it did when it was on UHF.

Not only are VHF wavelengths longer, they can penetrate buildings and negotitate hills better than UHF signals, whose shorter wavelengths cannot overcome the hilly local terrain as well as the longer wavelengths.

VHF wavelengths start at 30MHz at 10 meters long. As the frequency goes up, the wavelength goes down. When you reach the beginning of the UHF band at 300MHz, the wavelength is 1 meter long.

Let me explian this more clearly by showing you how long the wavelengths are for each channel and its frequency.

Channel 2's high end frequency is 60MHz, twice of 30MHz, but its wavelength is 5 meters long, half of 10 meters at 30MHz. That's where the TV VHF LO band begins. When you get to the last channel of the TV VHF LO band at channel 6, you get 88MHz, you get a wavelength of 3.4 meters long. Channel 6 at 100kw doesn't have as much reach for the same power used as Channel 2 does because the higher channel's wavelengths are shorter than the lower channel's is.

Someone on the radio a long time ago said that when you double the frequency, you have to raise your power squared to get the same coverage, but I'm not sure if that's fully true.

Channel 7's high end frequency is 180MHz, six times of 30MHz, and three times of 60MHz of Channel 2. Channel 7's wavelength is 1/3rd of Channel 2's, or 1.67 meters long. That is why the FCC let the TV VHF Hi band channels 7-13 broadcast up to 316kw compared with the TV VHF Lo band's limit of 100kw.

The TV UHF band begins with channel 14 at 476 MHz, with the wavelength of 0.63 of a meter long. When you get to channel 35, it's higher frequency limit is 602MHz, and its wavelength is 0.498 of a meter long. Channel 35's wavelength is one tenth of that of Channel 2's, which means that Channel 35 would need 100 times the power that Channel 2 uses to reach almost as many viewers, but with UHF signals, they don't propagate as well and perform noticably worse than VHF LO singlals.

You get to Channel 51 and its high frequency is 698MHz. Channel 69's is 806MHz. Channel 83, a channel not in use in the U.S. anymore, is 890MHz; its wavelength is 1/10th of that of Channel 6, or about 0.34 of a meter long. Channel 51's wavelength is 0.43 of a meter long by comparison. Channel 69's wavelength is 0.37 of a meter long.

The stations on the UHF band could broadcast as much as 5,000kw of power.

With the digital TV revolution, many stations are broadcasting at 1/5th of the maximum power according to which of the three TV bands they're using. VHF 2-6 is 20kw, VHF 7-13 is 62kw, and UHF 14-69 is 1000kw. With power to VHF that low, it's no wonder that they're having problems penetrating the homes and outlying areas that used to recieve their radio signals.

The solution for the VHF stations is to increase the power of their signals so that they could reach the areas that they used to reach when their DTV signals were on UHF before the transition. If a UHF station used 500kw, a VHF station should try 100kw, but remember that VHF wavelengths are over twice to three times as long as UHF signals depending on channel allocation, so VHF wavelengths can be picked up better over longer distances.

Note that it's easier to pick up the VHF channels 2-13 from Los Angeles than it is to pick up the Los Angeles UHF channels despite stations in the UHF band broadcasting with thousands of kw of power. Shorter wavelengths need line of sight for reception far more than longer wavelengths on the lower frequencies.

I used to pick up scratchy Los Angeles VHF channels 2-13 when they were in analog, but the UHF channels from there either came in with a hint of an unviewable snow reception or not at all. I got some snowy reception of channels 52 and 58 a long time ago. Analog Channels 7-13 came in stronger by comparison. Analog channels 2, 4, and 5 weren't as strong if they came in at all.

So whenever I read about the reception woes of viewers who can't pick up the digital stations on VHF, it's the power. Up the power so more people can view the signals. If they have to go as high as 100kw for VHF LO and 316kw for VHF HI in hilly terrains like San Diego, than go for it. UHF TV stations should go as high as 5,000kw if they wish.

If that doesn't work, than apply to put up boosters and translators so that viewers in far away places in the county can receive the signals. Put up boosters on Mount San Miguel, Mount Woodson, Mount Soledad, and other mountains and hills so that viewers can receive the digital signals better.

I may not be a radio engineer, but I know enough about radio waves to know that lower band waves are longer than higher band waves.