this question was asked before. A researcher commented on it, saying
that there is no solution. Another user however, came up with a comment,
showing an potential open window. I clarified the question and am now asking
for answer again. note that "Midwest" has been only mentioned to explain
the problem. any other region (600 by 600 mile) could be imagined.

Consider all the Midwest States of US. Imagine that I am not allowed
to do any activity and cannot have any physical (trackable) facility
inside any of these states. My project is to broadcast (at least) ONE
TV Channel so that Midwest TV watchers can receive the Channel fairly
clear. I don't want TV watchers do anything extra (i.e. buying and
installing special antenna) So my question, in fact, is:

How can I go onto TV screens in the imagined area with two limits:
1-we can't have any TRACKABLE facility inside the region. 2- TV
watcher can't buy or install usuall satellite equipments.

I assume that the only way we could probably do this is to broadcast
it directly (direct broadcast TV)-- Is this a correct assumption? Or
there are other ways? if yes, what are those?[:FIRST PART OF
QUESTION])

Holding my assumption true, I believe, leads to the following question: 

 What are the technological broadcasting limits of Direct Broadcast
(NON-satellite*) TV? How far can we push these limits, considering
extra resources and new technology?[:SECOND part of question]

* I am ruling out satellite option because I think that for receiving
satellite broadcasts you have to have extra equipment (satellite
antenna and receiver). Regardless of price, is it possible to do my
project with satellite (not requiring dish and receiver) with the
latest technology?[:THIRD part of question]

-------------------------MORE INFORMATION-------------------------------

Suppose that geographical layout is unknown. Could be heavily
mountainous, flat or a combination.

I am allowed to install anything in the neighboring states or Canada.

TV viewers have fairly new TV sets with a normal UHF-TV antenna.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Question Clarification by mvguy-ga on 02 Mar 2004 21:36 PST 

Do you care whether it's legal or not? Is there an upper price limit?

An example of what I'm getting it is that it would be technologically
possible to cover all the Midwest using a VHF or UHF broadcast
satellite. But it wouldn't be legal, and it would also be quite
expensive, due in part to the fact you'd have to transmit at a higher
power than most satellites do (in order to be picked up with cheap
antennas).

Keep in mind, also, that many TV viewers use cable and don't have an
external antenna connected, so they'd still have to do _something_
extra in order to receive something that's broadcast over the air.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification of Question by lost_explorer-ga on 03 Mar 2004 15:59 PST 

1-Legal issues and price do not matter at this point*. However it is
essential to have information on how price would change with regard to
range of coverage. It's important also, that the solution be
applicable in any part of the world, with the same given situation.

2-If you are answering this with a satellite approach, it would be
great if you can still give some information on dirct non-satellite
broadcasting's price-coverage and its coverage limits.

3-Don't worry about the antenna. Just suppose that TV watchers have a
normal UHF-VHF antenna.
 
Comments      
 
Subject: Re: Direct Broadcast TV 
From: denco-ga on 02 Mar 2004 20:44 PST     
Howdy lost_explorer-ga,

Almost certainly not possible to do, and get any decent coverage
of any of the key midwest states, and virtually no coverage in
the larger states such as Illinois and Indiana.

You are looking at maybe a 60 mile broadcast range with a 100kW
UHF station, and that is with the end user having a real good
(not normal) UHF antenna, flat land, etc.

Satellite gets ruled out because of all sorts of reasons.

Without the purchase of additional equipment, I can't think of
any way to accomplish what you are outlining.  The problem is
not so much on the broadcast end, but rather the reception side
of the formula.

Looking Forward, denco-ga - Google Answers Researcher

I'll add a comment as well, with regards to the trackable part of your question.

If you had a transmitter that was capable of putting out a strong
enough signal from a single source to cover a 600 mile x 600 mile
area, it would be very simple to triangulate its position; it's like
turning on a floodlight in a darkened, empty warehouse, all it would
take is three reference readings using directional antennae, and your
position will be exposed.

If you somehow came up with a way to perfectly synchronize a UHF
transmission from multiple sources scattered around your targeted
region, then tracking of your central source would be much more
difficult (especially if the central source were connected to the
remote transmission sources using terrestrial cabling); however,
synchronization at this level is next to impossible since the degree
of synchronization depends on the location of the receivers, as much
as it depends on the location of your transmitters.

Generally, you're looking at a need to put a whole lot of power into a
single transmitter, and suspending that transmitter high enough up in
the air to clear any terrestrial obstacles (like mountains), without
presenting a nice target practice opportunity to the military aircraft
of the US and/or Canada (which would surely deployed when a radiation
source as powerful as this transmitter is detected).

Your best bet using current technology is direct-to-home satellite TV
(Echostar/DISH, DirecTV, etc).

I agree with aht: The source, or multiple sources can be located.
 A GEO satellite could be designed to broadcast on UHF channel 60 for
a few billion dollars. More costly if want a really good picture from
a typical UHF loop near the edge of a circle with a 330 mile radius.
The satellite could not compete with any local TV stations on channel
60, but they are rare in thinnly populated areas. For less money you
can fly an aiplane at high altitude broadcasting on UHF channel 60
with good result, except near the bottom of very steep slopes facing
away from the center of the circle. The satellite would also fail to
reach the bottom of steep north facing slopes located at more than
about 45 degrees latitude.   Neil

Extending the concept: If the TV set is equipped with a $100 UHF
channel 60 antenna pointed in the optimum direction the circle of
reception is perhaps 1000 miles radius and excellent picture quality
within the 330 mile radius. If the satellite can carry a five million
watt transmitter and a nuclear power plant, the range of good
reception is about a 8000 mile elipse with the major axis East and
West, much of it with just the UHF loop. More transmitted power helps
the airplane deliver an excellent picture, but probably not much
farther than 500 mile radius unless the plane flies at more than
40,000 feet altitude. Several comanies are looking for a customer with
lots of money to test Zeppelin type craft and hot air balloons. The
hot air balloon could carry powerful transmitters, circle the world
several times delivering an hour, or several, of program over a wide
area that would include most of the Northern Hemisphere before it
reached the Arctic circle. Getting approval to do any of this will
require a massive PR = public relations campaign plus sizable bribes
to public officials IMHO = in my humble opinion.  Neil

mvguy is correct about a cable connection. It applies also to people
with small dish satellite. In both cases the TV can be programed for
antenna (except for a few cable customers that don't use a cable box)
Many of the small dish customers have an AB switch that selects an
outside antenna, which may be suitable for UHF channel 60.  Cable
customers rarely have an AB switch, but they can add an AB swich for
about $20. A good UHF antenna can be purchased for another $20 by mail
order, if not available locally. Good all band antennas cost up to
$100, more if you need a rotor to change the direction it points, and
they probably will need a rotor unless channel 60 is the only channel
they want to receive by antenna.
 Most modern TVs have a cable box built in except most won't decode
the digital channels (nor the graphics) that many cable companies are
adding to their line up. The customer must program the TV for cable,
if they don't use a cable box. That means they must reprogram the TV
to get UHF chanels, besides using the AB switch. That takes about two
minutes if you do it frequently, longer if the get it wrong 2 or 3
times and have to start over. Not many will bother unless channel 60
is fabulous.   Neil

Hot air balloons flying free at about 100,000 feet, comes the closest
to being non-trackable, but their approximate location is only
predictable about a week in advance, so people whould need to be
informed by another means when to watch UHF channel 60., unless 100 of
these balloons circled the Northern Hemisphere. That would provide a
weak signal most of the time with a good picture several times per
week for a few hours. The Southern Hemisphere is not suitable as
recovery in Antarctica would be very costly.
 There is at least one more way. Very redundent, but trackable. That
is the cell phone method. Four channels are required on perhaps
channel 30, 40, 50 and 60.  They could carry different programs at
different times. More than 100 of these transmitters (about 40
transmitters on channel 30 and a few less on the higher channels)
would be needed on flat terrain, perhaps 500 on 5 or 6 channels if
mostly mountains to cover the 600 mile by 600 mile area you suggested
and there would still be a few locals with a bad TV picture. With rare
exceptions, every mountain top would need one or two transmitters,
even some of the shorter mountains. That is why cell phones rarely
work in mountainous areas.  Neil

Another approach is called back scatter, or forward scatter, used by
the military for digital comunications as a backup for satellites. I'm
unsure of the optimum frequency, but likely UHF channel 54, 56, 58 and
60 are usable if the power is high enough. The transmitters would be
located just beyond the corners of the 600 mile square. The antenna
array points toward space. Dust particles etc reflect a tiny bit of
the signal back toward Earth. It works well in steep mountains as well
as flat country and the signal can be quite strong at least
occasionally. For TV the picture will likely be poor, perhaps
un-watchable due to multipath reception. I think it is untested for
TV. It might work better with the high definition TV which most people
may buy soon as the high definition is digital.  Neil