Digital Antenna

[Ext User(Netmask)]

We all know there is no such thing as a new order of technical devices like
digital antennae or digital speakers or digital microphones etc but.....

May I suggest, to avoid getting in to the semantic hen house, that we agree
that the term 'Digital

Antenna' shall mean "an antenna designed to receive only those wavelengths
for digital TV

transmission in accordance with the relevant Australian standards" This
would allow us and marketing people to use this very

convenient term without constantly having to explain it's not actually a
*digital* antenna or some

sort of new technological quantum physics device but just a piece of
aluminium tubing cut to

the appropriate length specifically for the available channels.

I have seen countless follow up emails and comments from didactics and
rigids

rubbishing perfectly reasonable suggestions to improve reception all because
they, the rigids as I

call them, want absolute precision in word usage when common usage is
sufficient in most cases

to get the message across. Australians are renown for simplifying the
language so as they say in Parliament "I humble beseech you to

consider"

[Ext User(Kubalister)]

Netmask wrote:
> We all know there is no such thing as a new order of technical devices like
> digital antennae or digital speakers or digital microphones etc but.....
>
> May I suggest, to avoid getting in to the semantic hen house, that we agree
> that the term 'Digital
>
> Antenna' shall mean "an antenna designed to receive only those wavelengths
> for digital TV
>
> transmission in accordance with the relevant Australian standards" This
> would allow us and marketing people to use this very
>
> convenient term without constantly having to explain it's not actually a
> *digital* antenna or some
>
> sort of new technological quantum physics device but just a piece of
> aluminium tubing cut to
>
> the appropriate length specifically for the available channels.
>
> I have seen countless follow up emails and comments from didactics and
> rigids
>
> rubbishing perfectly reasonable suggestions to improve reception all because
> they, the rigids as I
>
> call them, want absolute precision in word usage when common usage is
> sufficient in most cases
>
> to get the message across. Australians are renown for simplifying the
> language so as they say in Parliament "I humble beseech you to
>
> consider"

Why the fuck should we adopt a new technically incorrect (and confusing)
marketing term when we already have a designation to describe antennas
suitable for digital terrestrial TV:

A TV band 3 to 5 antenna is suitable for digital TV whereas a band 1 to
5 antenna is suited to analogue TV. (Excluding areas with only UHF
transmitters which require only a Band 4 to 5 antenna).

Band 1: Channels 0-2 VHF
Band 2: Channels 3-5 VHF
Band 3: Channels 5A-12 VHF
Band 4: Channels 28-35 UHF
Band 5: Channels 36-69 UHF

These designations have been around for a very long time and there is no
reason to make up yet another stupid confusing labelling system that
requires you to give a detailed explanation as to what it actually means.
If you don't like the English language then you're more than welcome to
invent your own, just don't expect anyone to tolerate your babbling.

[Ext User(bradvk2qq)]

When I was in the TV antenna manufacturing industry years ago, we made
antennas for specific channel groups and geographic regions. Our Metro
VHF antenna covered 2, 7-10 and 28. It had poor gain below 7 and above
10. At the time, there was nothing above 10 anyway. It was customised
to cover 28 but gain fell off higher in Band IV.

I am happy to use the term Digital Antenna if it describes a
replacement antenna designed to cover all the Band III channels 6-12
with a flat response and all of Band IV and V.

Brad.