View Full Version : Martin: Broadcasters Should Spread DTV With More Transmitters


Falcon_77
09-27-08, 02:32 AM
From TV Technology:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/blog/66922

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin Tuesday repeated his suggestion that broadcasters install additional transmitters to fill in blank spots in DTV coverage.

He briefly mentioned such a plan at a Sept. 16 hearing in the House, leaving vague the question of whether this might become a mandate for broadcasters whose signals leave holes. Tueday (Sept. 23 )at the Senate Commerce Committee, he said he was talking about getting the broadcasters to put in repeaters.

That was in response to a line of questions from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., about losing channels to the “digital cliff,” as well as the hazards of rooftop antenna installation in Minnesota in February.

Martin said it was impossible to exactly predict who would be subject to picture loss because of the “digital cliff” effect, but that such viewers would be at the edge of the stations’ contours and only 1 percent of viewers would have such problems. Last week, he said 15 percent of all markets could see some loss of a station or more. Martin said that inside stations’ coverage contours, people would have no problems. But he also mentioned analyzing coverage and finding and fixing blank areas.

The hearing was sparsely attended because many senators were at other meetings concerning the administration’s debt bailout package.

Martin said only 1.2 percent (2,272) of the Wilmington, N.C., market called the FCC hotline with problem. (Hundreds more called local broadcasters.) Some have compared those call-in numbers to the number of over-the-air viewers in the Wilmington DMA—about 14,000—and concluding that more than 10 percent of over-the-air viewers called in.

Committee Chairman Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, said even “Herculean” efforts in Wilmington led to thousands of calls.

“Feb. 17 is the 29th day of a new administration,” he said. “Neither a President Obama or a President McCain should have to deal with a failed transition.”

Martin said some of the Wilmington calls led to direct help from FCC engineers to install converter boxes.

Is he talking about translators or SFN's or on-channel repeaters? The considerable gaps being left by abandoning Low-VHF for UHF in most areas is probably better solved by such an approach. Increasing power can only do so much from one location. However, the stations probably have more than enough to do right now as it is.

Certainly, some people will be on the roof installing UHF antennas in February. That might be ok in LA, but it's not an easy task in many parts of the country.

sneals2000
09-27-08, 06:10 AM
How does 8VSB fair with SFNs?

I'd not heard it proposed for 8VSB - though it is being used in Europe with 8k DVB-T (and 32k DVB-T2 will allow for nationwide SFNs with a large 500us maximum guard-interval)

dr1394
09-27-08, 08:03 AM
How does 8VSB fair with SFNs?

I'd not heard it proposed for 8VSB - though it is being used in Europe with 8k DVB-T (and 32k DVB-T2 will allow for nationwide SFNs with a large 500us maximum guard-interval)
An ATSC standard exists for SFN's:

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a110.php

I don't think there's any actual equipment that complies with A/110. It would seem that current 8VSB technology is limited to a traditional translator (on a different frequency) approach.

Ron

Sammer
09-27-08, 01:03 PM
How does 8VSB fair with SFNs?

Early on, not well. The technology has improved but the law and FCC regulations lag so the equipment has not been standardized yet. Translators require new licenses and those licenses have little protection. The lack of protection has already resulted in the loss of some analog translators. Without solving those problems first the Chairman's statement seems a bit disingenuous.