Why? The economy is too strained now. The penetration rate of over-the-air is maybe 15-20%, the rest using cable or satellite. People with cable or sat won't care about lower power levels, but the station operators would care about lower power costs. Of those with OTA, most of them are closer to the transmitter; for them, lower power levels mean reduced or eliminated wind-related multipath intereference. Super-long-range OTA viewers are usually not lucrative enough for advertising, anyway, to spend the extra dough on transmitting costs. So it's a win-win-win for broadcasters.

So, stations should reduce their power levels to more manageable levels, in the 150-400 kW range for UHF. Maybe 500 kW in areas with high OTA penetration throughout a very large DMA, like Houston.

Here's an example: In Washington, DC, there are two UHF digital TV stations broadcast from the same tower site: WRC, at 813 kW, and WFDC, at 325 kW, both omnidirectional. Where I live, WRC is usually plagued with multipath interference in even mild wind, however I seem to orient the antenna, yet WFDC is very stable. But look at the TVFool coverage areas of both WRC (http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=80&q=call%3dWRC-DT%26type%3dD) and WFDC (http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=80&q=call%3dWFDC%26type%3dD). They look shockingly similar at longer ranges, which is especially interesting, considering that WRC's antenna is 40% higher than WFDC's (242 vs. 173 meters above average terrain). If someone can get WRC-DT with an antenna, chances are they could pull in enough signal to lock WFDC-DT, especially if the WFDC antenna were as high as WRC's.

On a related note: Lower power levels open UHF stations up to solid-state transmitter technology that's getting more power-efficient per watt of TPO than ever. By next NAB show, I'd think that there would be new transmitters that incorporate new technology that further improves solid-state technology. The concept of selling a higher-power IOT transmitter to pay for a lower-power solid-state transmitter will become a serious consideration. Who would buy used IOT transmitters? Canadian and Mexican broadcasters; after all, those countries are going through their own digital transition, and they'll need transmitters at as low a price as possible in a down economy.

(Speaking of the Canadian and Mexican transition, there will be a glut of unused, yet usable, VHF and UHF transmitters at the end of the US digital transition. These could also be sold to Mexican and Canadian stations in anticipation of their transition.)

I think you are missing the point. It's not the inner city dwellers that are going to be effected the most by the DTV transition. It's going to be the people living out in Styx that are already in a fringe area and do not have Satellite.

With Analog you can still watch a marginal signal through the snow. With digital, you have the digital cliff effect. Once you lose enough bits, it's all over, a black screen is all you get.

I'm sure most stations will be thankful they will only have to maintain and power up 1 transmitter instead of 2. That should save them quite a bit of money on their electricity bills!!

It would be nice if cable and satellite would carry all the local stations, but they don't. Even if they're required to in the future, Dish's spotbeam that they chose for my DMA doesn't even cover where I live -- which happens to be a place where I hardly have an analog signal, never mind a reduced-power digital one!

Why? The economy is too strained now. The penetration rate of over-the-air is maybe 15-20%, the rest using cable or satellite. People with cable or sat won't care about lower power levels, but the station operators would care about lower power costs. Of those with OTA, most of them are closer to the transmitter; for them, lower power levels mean reduced or eliminated wind-related multipath intereference. Super-long-range OTA viewers are usually not lucrative enough for advertising, anyway, to spend the extra dough on transmitting costs. So it's a win-win-win for broadcasters.
The station owners are ones making the decision to file for 1000 kW digital ERP for UHF channels. They obviously think it is worthwhile to broadcast at the highest power to reach more possible viewers. Besides, if you own a full power low VHF analog station and are staying on UHF for digital, you need the 800 to 1000 kW to get your coverage area closer to what you had with low VHF.

You do realize that a DT UHF station with a 1000 kW ERP is not actually using 1000 kW to power the transmitter? And how do you feel about analog UHF stations running at 5000 kW ERP? (But those will be gone in 40 days. Maybe).

Lower power levels mean reduced or eliminated wind-related multipath intereference.

(Speaking of the Canadian and Mexican transition, there will be a glut of unused, yet usable, VHF and UHF transmitters at the end of the US digital transition. These could also be sold to Mexican and Canadian stations in anticipation of their transition.)

Three incorrect premises:

# 1. The level of multipath is constant. Lower power doesn't reduce the reflections any more than the direct signal.

# 2. In order to maintain profit margins, stations need all the viewers that they can get. If a station were to loose 5% of the audience by reducing power and the profit margin is 5%, the station would no longer be profitable.

# 3. Canada already uses low power solid state UHF transmitters whenever possible. There is no market for used tube type transmitters.

Is it possible that WRC is using a higher gain antenna than WFDC? UHF transmit antennas with high gain factors may overshoot areas close to the transmitter. I seem to remember hearing stories about how our local UHF used to be received better at 35 miles out than at 15. A second U signed on w/ 5 megawatts ERP and 1970 ft, and it was more stable than the first, which was about 3 meg and 1500'. (both towers were w/in 2 mi of each other)

Anyway, just a theory. Posted data on the two, w/ antenna info in case anyone wants to dig further.


WRC-TV:
Polarization: Horizontal (H) Effective Radiated Power (ERP): 813. kW ERP Antenna Height Above Average Terrain: 242. meters HAAT -- Calculate HAAT Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level: 312. meters AMSL Antenna Height Above Ground Level: 194. meters AGL TV Zone: 1 Frequency Offset: 0 (zero) Non-Directional Antenna ID No.: 28664 Pattern Rotation: 0.00
Antenna Make: DIE Antenna Model: TFU-26GTH-R 04

WFDC-TV
Polarization: Horizontal (H) Effective Radiated Power (ERP): 325. kW ERP Antenna Height Above Average Terrain: 173. meters HAAT -- Calculate HAAT Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level: 243. meters AMSL Antenna Height Above Ground Level: 125. meters AGL TV Zone: 1 Frequency Offset: 0 (zero) Non-Directional Antenna ID No.: 76566 Pattern Rotation: 0.00
Antenna Make: AND Antenna Model: ATW28H5-HTOL-14H

Three incorrect premises:

# 1. The level of multipath is constant. Lower power doesn't reduce the reflections any more than the direct signal.

While it doesn't reduce reflections, I've seen lower power make the difference between decoding and not decoding. Attenuators work on multipath. While it doesn't reduce reflections, it reduces the intensity of the reflections (along with the main signal) which sometimes seems like it can make the difference between decoding or not. Don't ask me why it works, it just does in real world situations.

# 3. Canada already uses low power solid state UHF transmitters whenever possible. There is no market for used tube type transmitters.

What about Mexico? Their transition isn't until 2022, so they might be interested if they're still using high-powered stuff.

- Trip

WRC-DT NBC 4 is broadcasting on UHF 48 at 813 kW. WFDC-DT Univision 14 is broadcasting on UHF 15 at 325 kW. The difference in UHF channel frequency and the propagation pattern could be the reason MikeMikeb has problems getting WRC-DT. There are also 2 low power analog stations in DC on either side of UHF 48: WMDO-CA 47 and WWTD-LP 49 (150 kW). They should not be interfering with WRC-DT, but if one is closer in to the broadcast towers in DC, there could be interference in some spots.

WFDC-DT 14 has been granted it's post-transition maximization filing for 1000 kW, so it may be cranking up to 1000 kW as soon as February 18 (depending on whether the station is ready and the whims/last minute panic response of Congress). I guess MikeMikeb will find out then how he likes 1000 kW digital UHF stations (of which there are already 2 in DC: WUSA-DT CBS 9 (34), WTTG-DT Fox 5 (36)).

1000kW is a lot of power, but unless stations are willing to build additional translators and/or DTS, then lower power (e.g. 200kW or less) probably won't work well for them, especially for stations moving from Low-VHF.

The US runs far more power than most other countries, due to the single tower approach. e.g., The most powerful DTV transmitters in the UK operate at 20kW now, and will eventually increase to 200kW. The average ERP is just under 4kW, not including the few DTV relays that have signed on. The most powerful DTV transmitters in Germany appear to be at only 50kW. Both run DVB-T, which needs more power to cover the same area.

However, 50kW stations in the US would make a lot of people unhappy. Especially those that have their antennas pointed the wrong way or rely on indoor rabbit ears. While the FCC planning specs are to have outdoor antennas at 30', stations have essentially catered to the indoor rabbit ear model for decades.

1000kW is a lot of power, but unless stations are willing to build additional translators and/or DTS, then lower power (e.g. 200kW or less) probably won't work well for them, especially for stations moving from Low-VHF...

While the FCC planning specs are to have outdoor antennas at 30', stations have essentially catered to the indoor rabbit ear model for decades.

I am rural. Actually caught between 2 NBCs.

Interesting though about the designed for reception at 30 feet. That to me is pretty high up for a pole. Well it's right on the edge of guy wires, if not needing guy wires.

Seems a system designed for the 15 to 20 feet range would make more sense. At that height installation if much easier for the average do it yourself person that is not into understanding electronics, TV, etc.

Then again, the FCC is the FCC.... :@)

Dude? Your theory simply isn't born out by the facts on the ground.

Why?

#1 and it's a biggie: if a station reduced power significantly it ceases to be a must-carry in any cities at the fringe. Carriage is the entire TV business model.

#2: many stations are already comfortable operating a 5000kw and 1000kw transmitter with their analog and DTV UHF signals.

#3: the relative cost of running an existing transmitter isn't all that bad. The build out of the tower and initial installation are the monster. That's why you see so many cases where competing companies build on the same tower.

#4: overall operating costs are driven more by the studios required to run a respectable stations. That's why you see the first big, deep cut by poor stations is always local news.

I'm sorry, your genius plan sort of sucks. To be honest, unless you think it is a patentable business model, I'm not even certain why you aired the notion.

Why? The economy is too strained now. The penetration rate of over-the-air is maybe 15-20%, the rest using cable or satellite. People with cable or sat won't care about lower power levels...I don't live in DC. I live in the real world and rely on OTA for in-state TV, as do all my neighbors. I like 1,000kW DTV stations.

Some of our area stations are shutting off 5,000kW analog transmitters on 2/17. They are very happy that 1,000kW will cover their huge DMAs.

I don't live in DC. I live in the real world and rely on OTA for in-state TV, as do all my neighbors. I like 1,000kW DTV stations.

Some of our area stations are shutting off 5,000kW analog transmitters on 2/17. They are very happy that 1,000kW will cover their huge DMAs.

I don't live in town either. I like more power! The VHFs are the worst. Most of them are running way too low power but that is off topic in this thread.

Another thought. If translator stations are such a great idea, why did they give away channels 52 to 69, which have bad range anyway, mainly due to loss in the feedline and antenna not designed for the upper end of the band. Not to mention if you compare channels in the 20s to those in the 60s, the propagation range changes over that freq spread.

Those would have made great short range repeaters for towns distance from the main tower in the same DMA.

But! and a big butt. It would not solve the sparse and far spread of rural viewers. That takes power. The US is more rural than Great Britain and Germany. To compare their power levels affecting rural viewers is comparing apples to oranges.

Interesting though about the designed for reception at 30 feet. That to me is pretty high up for a pole.

When that spec was established (1950s or 1960s) they were probably thinking of antennas attached to the typical houses of that day: two-story, or one-story with a fairly tall attic, then adding a few feet above the roof line. Not modular homes with low or flat roofs.

When that spec was established (1950s or 1960s) they were probably thinking of antennas attached to the typical houses of that day: two-story, or one-story with a fairly tall attic, then adding a few feet above the roof line. Not modular homes with low or flat roofs.

For that matter, they weren't planning for TV antennas to become a universal symbol of poverty and/or weirdness. If you live in town, there is a bit of a stigma that goes with have a big outdoor aerial attached to your roof. It's indicates to your neighbors that you either too poor to afford cable or that you are a quack.

And that's fine for people like me, because my neighbors are all very aware I'm crazy. But, more image conscious, non-geeks may be less inclined to plant a 30' pole to their house announcing they're a little strange.

Of course, those awesomely hideous clusters of satellite dishes on everyone's homes are reducing some of the stigma.

While it doesn't reduce reflections, I've seen lower power make the difference between decoding and not decoding. Attenuators work on multipath. While it doesn't reduce reflections, it reduces the intensity of the reflections (along with the main signal) which sometimes seems like it can make the difference between decoding or not. Don't ask me why it works, it just does in real world situations.
- Trip

You have described exactly the symptoms of tuner overload.

With Analog you can still watch a marginal signal through the snow. With digital, you have the digital cliff effect. Once you lose enough bits, it's all over, a black screen is all you get.

You know, I realize that I'm a single data point and that there maybe a couple of "lucky breaks" my way. But, I am 76 miles from the towers in the next DMA over. I have no problem receiving the full power UHF's DT's well over 50% of the time (waiver denial criteria.) In fact, I rely on that market for most CBS-HD programming. OTOH, the analogs, while occasionally viewable through the snow, are not something I would willingly watch except under extreme emergency conditions.

In short, all this talk about "digital cliffs" is a bunch of hooowy ... digital is "usable" for at least 10-15 miles further than analog.

PS: That aforementioned, CBS station is actually only 600kW :)

In short, all this talk about "digital cliffs" is a bunch of hooowy ... digital is "usable" for at least 10-15 miles further than analog.


Not in my case. I live 120 miles from the major network transmitters. Right now I can receive the analog of channels 7 fair and 13 pretty good. Channels 7 and 13 are also currently transmitting their digital signal at full power but yet I can not receive either of them on the same deep fringe antenna

In short, all this talk about "digital cliffs" is a bunch of hooowy ... digital is "usable" for at least 10-15 miles further than analog.



there is a threshold of signal for decoding. if the signal reaching you is over that threshold, which will vary with conditions (weather, ionosphere ) for fringe and greater, then you will get a picture.

with analog it is possible to see something well out of that market in lower quality. the good quality range is greater with digital because either you have it or not. for all the time reception of digital I think the markets are not 10 miles greater than analog, so far there seems to be an overall loss (some markets will gain and others loose), but it will have to wait until the final channels of the transition to see.

Wouldn't decreasing broadcast power by a factor of, say, 5 reduce coverage area by a factor of 25?

Sure, there are fewer people per square mile in far-suburban and rural areas, but the drastically increased coverage makes up for it.

The concept of selling a higher-power IOT transmitter to pay for a lower-power solid-state transmitter will become a serious consideration.

You do realize that ERP is a product of transmitter power output and antenna gain? And that a lower antenna gain and with a higher power transmitter provides better signal density than a low power transmitter with a high gain antenna? All 1 megawatt stations are not equal, higher signal density is much better in a high multipath environment. Some make a short-sighted choice based on operating costs alone at the expense of receivability.(From one who runs 3 IOT's to make 1 megawatt)

look at it this way..you have a slice of bread (coverage area) with a choice of different sized butter knives (antennas) and some butter (power). Which will cover the bread better, regardless of the knife size?: a teaspoon of butter, or a tablespoon?

...ERP is a product of transmitter power output and antenna gain? And that a lower antenna gain and with a higher power transmitter provides better signal density than a low power transmitter with a high gain antenna? All 1 megawatt stations are not equal, higher signal density is much better in a high multipath environment. Some make a short-sighted choice based on operating costs alone at the expense of receivability.(From one who runs 3 IOT's to make 1 megawatt)



Would like to ask how many kW's are needed to make 1 meg in a low gain ant. installation...also, what are common gain factors for UHF xmit antennas from low to high?

Would largely rural areas be an example where low transmit power/high gain installations would work OK?

For that matter, they weren't planning for TV antennas to become a universal symbol of poverty and/or weirdness. If you live in town, there is a bit of a stigma that goes with have a big outdoor aerial attached to your roof. It's indicates to your neighbors that you either too poor to afford cable or that you are a quack.

Thanks for my big chuckle for the day!

I resemble that remark! :D

I'm in the middle of a valley that has very POOR reception, and I'm finding ways to invest in better signal reception. I vote for MORE power and/or lower station frequencies. :rolleyes:

there is a threshold of signal for decoding. if the signal reaching you is over that threshold, which will vary with conditions (weather, ionosphere ) for fringe and greater, then you will get a picture.

with analog it is possible to see something well out of that market in lower quality.

EDITED For Content: :)

If that last line above had read: 'with analog it is possible to see something well out of that market in much lower quality that's barely viewable.' You'd be right.

Let me put it this way, in the past 5-6 years, at 76 miles there has never been a case where my distant analog stations have been "watchable" while the corresponding digitals have been "over the cliff." Yes the so-called digital "cliff" exists. Does it really matter? ... Not so much. :)

The other side of the so-called "cliff" story is that the beauty of digital TV is that your receiver can and will dig every bit it can out of the noise and produce a perfect picture in conditions where the analog is 80-90% snow.

Is the class half full or half empty? :D

Not to hijack your thread but I do have problem receiving WRC even though rest of the DC stations come perfect. I can even pick up some of Baltimore channels as for WFDC I have no problem receiving it.

Would like to ask how many kW's are needed to make 1 meg in a low gain ant. installation

In our case, ~54kw.

You do realize that ERP is a product of transmitter power output and antenna gain? And that a lower antenna gain and with a higher power transmitter provides better signal density than a low power transmitter with a high gain antenna? All 1 megawatt stations are not equal, higher signal density is much better in a high multipath environment. Some make a short-sighted choice based on operating costs alone at the expense of receivability.(From one who runs 3 IOT's to make 1 megawatt)

look at it this way..you have a slice of bread (coverage area) with a choice of different sized butter knives (antennas) and some butter (power). Which will cover the bread better, regardless of the knife size?: a teaspoon of butter, or a tablespoon?

I learn so much from your posts. :D

- Trip

Would largely rural areas be an example where low transmit power/high gain installations would work OK?

Most RF experts would tell you in flat areas with little multipath, it would be "ok".

Not to hijack your thread but I do have problem receiving WRC even though rest of the DC stations come perfect. I can even pick up some of Baltimore channels as for WFDC I have no problem receiving it.
If you are having trouble getting WRC-DT NBC 4 on UHF 48 in DC, you can ask for suggestions in the DC-Baltimore thread at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=793124&page=259. If you are well west of DC, out near Winchester VA, there is a low power station, WAZW-CA on UHF 48 which interferes with the digital broadcast of WRC-DT.

When that spec was established (1950s or 1960s) they were probably thinking of antennas attached to the typical houses of that day: two-story, or one-story with a fairly tall attic, then adding a few feet above the roof line. Not modular homes with low or flat roofs.

Makes sense. Now my take on this. If they redid the channel spacing, power, tower heights on digital to obviously squeeze in more stations than the old analogue days, then why didn't they reconsider people putting up lower antennas at home in the process?

One thing I have noticed talking about snow and digital cliff in the flat lands of Florida. There is no longer much need to put up a huge tower in the back yard. It seems if you are going to receive a digital station it will come in at 20 to 30 feet and going up to 50 while it will help, doesn't make the difference it did if you were willing to watch slight snow on out of town signals.

A good example here where I live. There were 2 analog stations from Orlando, 2 and 9 that one could watch here with about any VHF pointed at Orlando area. If you have a rooftop, they were usable at night , but too much snow in the day in general. If you went up 50 to 60 feet on a tower, they became near perfect at night and watchable in the day with very light snow.

Well you can still see those two channels digital here from 50 feet but you never know when it will not just pixelate, but totally drop out. They drop out less up higher but still drop, leaving the viewer unable to follow a dialogue or story line.

So my point is unless you like to DX , for normal viewing there isn't much reason to go up more than 30 ft. And I have found in most cases it's no point above 20 ft. I have noticed stations going away under 20 ft for people 30 plus miles from a tower.

Hence I tell people to design OTA for stations they know they can receive. Trying that distance station with even 5% drop outs leads to frustration at best. Just find what comes in and aim at that.

Then take my mother in law that hates she is losing stations in the transition. But you have to understand, she has never had cable/sat and watches channels with 10% or more snow and considers that normal.

Yeah, so to me there is a cliff, not a reception curve that after a point drops rapidly to an asymptote.

I want analog to go away so I'll stop trying to figure out 'how much snow is equal to 50% on ATSC'? Wondering about my VHF reception is killing me.

Then take my mother in law that hates she is losing stations in the transition. But you have to understand, she has never had cable/sat and watches channels with 10% or more snow and considers that normal.

Yeah, so to me there is a cliff, not a reception curve that after a point drops rapidly to an asymptote.

This is something about the transition that I think a lot of people, especially those who are city-dwellers not used to weak signals, don't understand. Falcon_77 posted in the Los Angeles thread where he did analog signal tests with attenuators, testing how far down before a signal on analog became "unwatchable." He went down to -30 dB and called it unwatchable. If my UPN had looked that good when Star Trek was on, I'd have been thrilled.

People in rural areas make due with the static a lot more often than some might think. Here's his post: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15514926&postcount=4082 At that attenuation level, -30 dB, his results were pretty poor on the digital side, and yet on the analog that is perfectly watchable.

- Trip

People in rural areas make due with the static a lot more often than some might think. Here's his post: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15514926&postcount=4082 At that attenuation level, -30 dB, his results were pretty poor on the digital side, and yet on the analog that is perfectly watchable.

- Trip

This is my point. I have been there. Cable has changed the face of what is watchable for city folks, and I understand that completely, no dissing.

I lived rural most of my life. Even when I lived in Orlando in the 1960's I had electrical interference on WESH 2.0. Then WFTV moved from west Orlando (I was 12 miles west of downtown now considered in town) to Bithlo, we had to split the antenna between just aiming at WESH (Orange City) and Bithlo. This didn't both the WESH image, except less saturation meant more electrical interference.

I moved to Gainesville and was on antennas most of the time. All we had local was WCJB, 20.0 ABC. Everything else was 50 miles plus. On and on, but I lived with static in the picture a lot. It was much better than a blank screen.

I am not at all defending analog, just proving the point that a lot of people are used to static. This will also affect people I know in towns on rabbit ears. They are only 10 miles from towers but watch static or ghosts, etc. They switched to digital and some stations were obviously better and others were, "where did ABC or NBC go? Aren't they digital?" Of course they are but that rabbit ear doesn't cut it. These are also the type of people that bulked at converter boxes with a coupon, and darn sure aren't buying a Silver Sensor which doesn't fix the fact there is a VHF in most towns now.

Final point is I don't think they thought out the power levels well enough. Also don't forget, this is not state of the art stuff, DTV standards are now over 12 years old! Think of the computer you were using 12 years ago.

The problem seems to be that the people who have determined that the digital "cliff" is 12dB (or whatever) below the level at which analog signals become unwatchable are engineers. THEY (and I, for that matter) wouldn't bother watching the sorts of snowy, noisy, fading in-and-out, and occasionally bursting into noise analog signals that my in-laws put up with. But a lot of people apparently do.

I did as well. I wanted my Star Trek, and by god I watched it in its snowy glory! :D

- Trip

I did as well. I wanted my Star Trek, and by god I watched it in its snowy glory! :D

- Trip

are you sure that wasn't just the transporter or other special effects?

are you sure that wasn't just the transporter or other special effects?

Nope, it was 80 kW worth of W54BT, 1 kW per mile covered. :)

- Trip

PS - That's a joke, for all those who will want to correct me.

The problem seems to be that the people who have determined that the digital "cliff" is 12dB (or whatever) below the level at which analog signals become unwatchable are engineers. THEY (and I, for that matter) wouldn't bother watching the sorts of snowy, noisy, fading in-and-out, and occasionally bursting into noise analog signals that my in-laws put up with. But a lot of people apparently do.

I watched a LOT of snowy TV in my life.

An interesting aside. When my youngest kid that never saw a BW TV in the house was a teen he would not watch anything period no way taboo that was in BW. Something like an old Twilight Zone wast verboten! Nein!

He is late twenties now and found he was missing a lot of good old TV and movies.

It's the same mindset. Many people under even 40 now have never ever been on an antenna they can remember. The slightest static, fade, etc, anything less than totally uncompressed video or super BlueRay sucks.

It is not right or wrong, it's where you came from.

But in this case you have to consider a vast majority of the OTA users are rural. So let a million watts burn a hole in the ionosphere!

Someone once posted, during the past couple of years, a series of pictures from analog signals of varying strengths, including one that corresponds to the limit of the FCC-defined service area, for their "standard" antenna setup. I wish I could find it again. Maybe someone remembers who posted it and can search for it successfully.

Off topic and bickering posts removed. Remember, this is AVS, not Fark. If you use the quote button when replying, leave the quote alone or leave it in context. It's okay to edit it just to the point you're replying to, but please do not alter the quote and type "fixed it for you." Thanks.

If you use the quote button when replying, leave the quote alone or leave it in context. It's okay to edit it just to the point you're replying to, but please do not alter the quote and type "fixed it for you." Thanks.

Ok, fine. The original "offending" post has been re-fixed. :)

I used to only get our local VHF-HI stations KTTC 10 at 28miles, in the analog days, in Rochester, it was a very strong station and most any type of antenna would get a watchable picture. I had one VHF-LO and a while could watch KIMT 3, at 50miles away, it never looked that great, once in while, watching a show at 5:30AM, it would be very watchable, in hind site, it was prolly tropo enhancement... Once I got an ATSC tuner, I cannot stand any fuzz at all on an analog signal... Short of LOS, I have rarely seen a good analog picture..... There are a lot of people who live in the fringe areas, who are happy for all the power that they can get, that said, most of the time, going from power level to double, does not make THAT big of a difference.... Example, 200kw to 500kw does not make a huge difference in my own observations...

In the Mid 80's I lived in an apartment and used a rabbit ears to record all of the episodes of Star Trek TOS. It had a little snow but not too bad. Then I moved to a house and put up a chimney mounted antenna and got a perfect picture. So I rerecorded all the Star Trek episodes. Only after I deleted all the rabbit ears recorded episodes did I realize that the rabbit ears recorded episodes were the original 51 minute episodes and the rooftop antenna recorded episodes were the ones edited down to 45 minutes. (now have the DVD set of the 51 minute episodes).

Rick R

So I rerecorded all the Star Trek episodes. Rick R

When I ran master control in the mid 80's, we had all those episodes on 1" tape..there were a few dubs made here and there on the overnights..:p

There are a lot of people who live in the fringe areas, who are happy for all the power that they can get, that said, most of the time, going from power level to double, does not make THAT big of a difference.... Example, 200kw to 500kw does not make a huge difference in my own observations...

Going from 500KW to 1000KW is only 3db and 3db is the minimum difference one can notice to any extent. It makes or breaks reception right at the edge.

However UHFs running 150KW going to 1000KW is a big difference. 8db. That pushes out the range 10 miles in a lot of cases.

It's like all the HB VHF's runing less than 6 or 7KW. Mostly just to get on the local cable system as a local channel. If they just went to 25 to 30KW they would add 6 db and make the difference in indoor antenna in town instead of having to run an attic or rooftop 10 miles away.

[Humor: If everyone turned it up , way up, then it might be possible to produce E-Skip up to 700 MHz, really filling the band, lol]

It's like all the HB VHF's runing less than 6 or 7KW. Mostly just to get on the local cable system as a local channel. If they just went to 25 to 30KW they would add 6 db and make the difference in indoor antenna in town instead of having to run an attic or rooftop 10 miles away.

We run WOLO-DT on Ch-8 with an ERP of 43.7kw, top-mounted antenna.
(TPO 4.47kw). It "walks the dog" so to speak.

We run WOLO-DT on Ch-8 with an ERP of 43.7kw, top-mounted antenna.
(TPO 4.47kw). It "walks the dog" so to speak.

I am sure it drags the puppies along too! Nice, very nice. The right way to do High Band VHF.... Plus you are up at 527m AGL, you must cover out 60 miles plus, depending on terrain.

I see WIS is up about the same height the FCC gives them the same 36dbu contour. I bet that doesn't pan out in reality for them, it just can't. I bet you penetrate to rabbit ears in Sumter, and well they don't. Just a guess.

The station I used to work for WCJB UHF then and now, went from 5MW ERP to some 300KW and lost range.

There is a Ch11 in Orlando FL DMA, WESH that runs 54KW that is 83 miles from me up here in N. Central Fl (actually in my DMA) at 500meters. I can almost use it here. It fades off and on but there about 80% of the time.

I am caught between the above NBC WESH and WNBW that is 37 miles at 300meters (flat terrain) with 860 Watts in my direction (yes 0.860KW). Both stations come in 40 out 100, but the closer one doesn't fade but just slightly now and then, where WESH out 83 miles does 20% of the time.

Seems NBC grabbed a lot of HB VHF channels and on a lot of them not running a lot of power. Wonder what the deal is there? WESH is one of their flagships and does run a lot of power but it's the except around me for NBC.

Ahhh, a walk down the snowy memory lane.

When I was really young our BW TV went out and it was never fixed. So I grew up with radio and books and missed the TV culture from the '70s. In the early '80s we did get a BW portable set and watched it on rabbit ears for a time. How, I'll never know, we put up with that "picture" is beyond me. On New Years Day 1981 we put up an outside antenna dad had bought on a farm sale with a rotor and the difference was night and day. I watched President Reagan's inauguration in crystal clear BW glory. Then about a year later we got a 19" color TV and the crystal clear BW gave way to a sometimes snowy and often fussy color picture. KOLN was always clear, the rest, not so much.

I went through a progression of antennas as I discovered UHF and wanted to see NBC programming. Many a night I watched Night Court as KSNT went from crystal clear to near nothing and back again in a few seconds. Such was watching TV in the fringe area. DBS wasn't yet available--actually only just being talked about--and TVRO was still too durned expensive during a time when every penny counted on the farm.

I moved to Kansas City and went to school for a couple of years and we had cable which lacked an impressive picture, but it was all the networks and stable. I took a job in Enid, OK and that TCI system sucked eggs for the most part. I got DirecTV in late '96 and was astounded as to how good of a picture my 25" Zenith TV could display. I put up an antenna to get the OKC network stations and really had no worse of a picture than TCI provided.

Now I've gotten so used to the "perfect" picture of DBS and DTV that any flaw is detectable. Last night I was watching the AFC game on CBS out of LAX and noticed an interference pattern making its way up my screen. It wasn't on any other channel and when I switched to CBS east, it was its normal crystal clear picture. Other channels were clear as well. As I watched CBS west a bit more, I noticed a bit of ghosting as well. So I suspect that DirecTV was grabbing the analog signal for some reason (DTV shut down pending the transition?). So, I can readily understand how anyone used to perfect pictures would call a picture "unwatchable" that many of us out in the fringe were overjoyed to get even a few times a month.

It's kind of funny how I can still watch a snowy picture on analog and not think too much of it, although I may not have that opportunity for very long.

Ahhh, a walk down the snowy memory lane.

When I was really young our BW TV went out and it was never fixed. So I grew up with radio and books and missed the TV culture from the '70s. In the early '80s we did get a BW portable set and watched it on rabbit ears for a time. How, I'll never know, we put up with that "picture" is beyond me. On New Years Day 1981 we put up an outside antenna dad had bought on a farm sale with a rotor and the difference was night and day. I watched President Reagan's inauguration in crystal clear BW glory. Then about a year later we got a 19" color TV and the crystal clear BW gave way to a sometimes snowy and often fussy color picture. KOLN was always clear, the rest, not so much.

I went through a progression of antennas as I discovered UHF and wanted to see NBC programming. Many a night I watched Night Court as KSNT went from crystal clear to near nothing and back again in a few seconds. Such was watching TV in the fringe area. DBS wasn't yet available--actually only just being talked about--and TVRO was still too durned expensive during a time when every penny counted on the farm.

I moved to Kansas City and went to school for a couple of years and we had cable which lacked an impressive picture, but it was all the networks and stable. I took a job in Enid, OK and that TCI system sucked eggs for the most part. I got DirecTV in late '96 and was astounded as to how good of a picture my 25" Zenith TV could display. I put up an antenna to get the OKC network stations and really had no worse of a picture than TCI provided.

Now I've gotten so used to the "perfect" picture of DBS and DTV that any flaw is detectable. Last night I was watching the AFC game on CBS out of LAX and noticed an interference pattern making its way up my screen. It wasn't on any other channel and when I switched to CBS east, it was its normal crystal clear picture. Other channels were clear as well. As I watched CBS west a bit more, I noticed a bit of ghosting as well. So I suspect that DirecTV was grabbing the analog signal for some reason (DTV shut down pending the transition?). So, I can readily understand how anyone used to perfect pictures would call a picture "unwatchable" that many of us out in the fringe were overjoyed to get even a few times a month.

It's kind of funny how I can still watch a snowy picture on analog and not think too much of it, although I may not have that opportunity for very long.

This is really getting off topic. But the family was out shopping the night Katrina hit NO. I was listening to WWL on AM trying to find out what was happening. The family said what are listening to, it's all noise. Years of AM and SSB on Shortware I was listening to what they were saying. Once they realized I really could through the intense static it was, well what is happening!

We bought color at home in the late 60s so Dad could watch Bonanza. I moved out in 1973 and watched 19 inch BW's until 1980 when Dad gave me the old color set. It lasted a year or so and back to 19 inch BW. I was 32 when I bought a used 19 inch color and I was 37 before I bought my first new color set. I bought many used cars, a new car, 2 houses before I spent money on TV. I guess part of it was I watched TV all day at work being in broadcast. But the point was I had tens of thousands in equatity and a few grand in the bank before I bought my first 19 inch color set.

Now kids at 27 have to have a 42 inch LCD, etc etc and wonder why they are broke and no one can pay their bills.

I bet you penetrate to rabbit ears in Sumter, and well they don't. .

Don't know if it's THAT good ..but we do have full time viewers at 68 miles.
(next door to Carowinds using a rooftop antenna) :)

Don't know if it's THAT good ..but we do have full time viewers at 68 miles.
(next door to Carowinds using a rooftop antenna) :)

Ok, too much of a compliment on the rabbit ears! :@)

68 miles sounds just about what I see here in Florida. I only have one high power tall VHF to compare with WESH on 11.1 out of Bithlo (Orlando). I am 83 miles and no matter how high I go, the dropouts are not acceptable. It shows me about 8 miles past their contour on the FCC maps. It's pretty flat between me and their tower, as both of us are east of the mid state ridge in the peninsula with a lot of the shot up the St John's River valley (not valley's like you think of in SC but a dip). I really think if I were just 15 miles or so closer, I could get to the point the dropouts would not affect viewing.

Yea, so 68 miles to rooftop is "walking the puppies". Take care.

Pigge aka PapaPig :@)

People in the fringe area may not be lucrative to the advertising market but when the switch to DTV takes effect, 12 Jun 2009, the PBS (WUNC) station will also not receive any donation from me. The local commercial stations are not worth watching. However, all is not lost. We can still rent movies and watch them on the tube until it gives out.

People in the fringe area may not be lucrative to the advertising market but when the switch to DTV takes effect, 12 Jun 2009, the PBS (WUNC) station will also not receive any donation from me. The local commercial stations are not worth watching. However, all is not lost. We can still rent movies and watch them on the tube until it gives out.

Read this posted in another thread here on the board

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101541768

People in the fringe area may not be lucrative to the advertising market but when the switch to DTV takes effect, 12 Jun 2009, the PBS (WUNC) station will also not receive any donation from me.

After analog shutdown, I'll probably start contributing to its sister UNC-TV station, WUNF in Asheville, because I'll finally be able to watch its digital signal without co-channel interference from an analog station in Columbia SC. So we'll balance out. :D

There certainly is a digital cliff and TV here is falling off it.
We get 7 analog stations (was 8 before 2/17) and 0 digital stations.