^^^ See Post #3721 :)

Also in HD: Oprah and Ellen, '2+1/2 Men' and a few more syndicated reruns (CSI and stuff) in wee hours. The drought is finally ending .... of course the PQ is steadily approaching 480p (or worse) quality on some of our locals.

Looks like the Lexington HD channels are uplinked but you have to have the "Eastern Arc" to do this. Not sure why Dish would do this.

it's a bad night in the Fox den. Please do not adjust your sets, the problem is with the fiber from Columbus

I noticed FOX this morning. Very fuzzy.

I called Dish today and the only option is getting another dish pointing at the 77 orbit. They offered it for free with a 24 month commit and for $59 without the commit.

Hi

I live in Georgetown and have Time Warner cable. They have 3 out of the 4
networks in HD but do not have ABC . They also have very few choices in
HD channels at the moment.

I guess my question is do I stay with TWC and hope in Feburary when
the digital switch frees up bandwith I will get more channels or do I
switch over to Dish? I would like to get all the locals in HD and
channels like Sci-fi,USA and more pay channels in HD.

Thanks

Hi

I live in Georgetown and have Time Warner cable. They have 3 out of the 4
networks in HD but do not have ABC . They also have very few choices in
HD channels at the moment.

I guess my question is do I stay with TWC and hope in Feburary when
the digital switch frees up bandwith I will get more channels or do I
switch over to Dish? I would like to get all the locals in HD and
channels like Sci-fi,USA and more pay channels in HD.

Thanks

With proper planning and a little do it your self you can pick up all the lex locals, and over 100 quality channels in HD w/ Direct TV.

I'm using the Terrestrial Digital V15 Mid Range UHF/VHF Antenna, and I live about 30 miles east of lexington. All the locals are coming in at 99 / 100%, and are integrated into my HDDVR w/ Direct TV. The box to integrate the locals cost an extra $50 dollars, but they will usually offset the cost by giving you 10 dollars off your bill for 6 months.

I changed over from Time Warner in October, and couldn't be happier.

However, you gotta pay to play. In total I probably spent around $275 getting the correct equipment installed and working.

With proper planning and a little do it your self you can pick up all the lex locals, and over 100 quality channels in HD w/ Direct TV.

I'm using the Terrestrial Digital V15 Mid Range UHF/VHF Antenna, and I live about 30 miles east of lexington. All the locals are coming in at 99 / 100%, and are integrated into my HDDVR w/ Direct TV. The box to integrate the locals cost an extra $50 dollars, but they will usually offset the cost by giving you 10 dollars off your bill for 6 months.

I changed over from Time Warner in October, and couldn't be happier.

However, you gotta pay to play. In total I probably spent around $275 getting the correct equipment installed and working.


Thanks for the reply. I am not in a situation where I can use any
kind of outdoor antenna. I would be limited to a indoor one and
I have heard mixed reviews on that working with any kind of
reliablity.

So I am stuck with cable or satellite whichever one gets all the
local channels first. I would probably go with Dish since I can
bundle 3 or 4 things with att to get a lower bill and I like their
dvr better than Directtv's one.

The Lexington market has a 30 minute DTV education program which contains a 2 minute simulated analog shutdown scheduled from 7:30-8pm on Dec 2 for all commercial stations. This will not include KET due to the statewide nature of their system. The simulated shutdown will be broadcast on the analog transmitters only, and if your use OTA reception or your cable or satellite provider is still tuned to the analog transmitters, you will see this test on your local stations. In addition, the FCC is attempting to organize a nationwide 5 minute soft test at 7:30pm on Dec 17th.

I personally had a long conversation with the commish yesterday, and they would like to make an effort to get the word out to the elderly and less technological savvy folks by using any method possible. They specifically mentioned community service hours for high school students, kiosks at malls during the holidays, and any other means that we can think of. I would ask that if you are a member of this website, you likely have the ability to assist many people with the transition, and I'm sure many of you already have.

If you are out at the electronics store over the next few weeks, and you hear the sales person try to sell someone an amplified UHF antenna to pick up the local Lexington stations, please educate the sales person and the shopper about our two VHF channels, WKYT and WDKY.

Thanks! and Happy Thanksgiving! If you are out driving this weekend, please drive safe. Your family will be there when you get there even if you are a little late.

So I just (ok, Monday night) hooked up my new Samsung HDTV, ran the audio out optical to a new Sony A/V receiver. Because of kids & work, haven't had much time to watch. But watching FOX football today (Thanksgiving), had lip sync issues. It looked like the video was ahead of the audio. So I thought it had something to do withe the HDTV processing the audio, then passing it to the receiver. However, I later turned on the 6pm news for 'LEX, 'KYT, and 'TVQ... all of them had the audio in sync. Now it sounds like it was a problem with the FOX feed. Anyone else notice this?

Yes, even when watching the game, the issue with video/audio sync was isolated to Fox. The other local feeds were in sync. Don't know if was the national feed or local.

I found this interesting... I just called Dish about upgrading to an HD package, and was told the only two locals available in HD were ABC (36) and NBC (18). I would have thought it was an "all or nothing" kind of deal.

WDKY is available in HD from Dish but WKYT and the KET channel are not. Most likely WKYT is playing hardball with them to get the CWKYT added in HD as well

Anyone having issues with WDKY Fox OTA? I'm alternating between 75-80 (my normal strength) and 0. Every few seconds it will drop to 0 (causing cutting in and out of the signal depending on which device I'm watching at the time).

Noticed it last night and tonight. Not sure if it is weather related or something else.

Just me?

Nope, jstew, not just you. My Sarah Conner recording on my dish 622 (via OTA) was hosed, constant drop outs and unwatchable.

Anyone having issues with WDKY Fox OTA? I'm alternating between 75-80 (my normal strength) and 0. Every few seconds it will drop to 0 (causing cutting in and out of the signal depending on which device I'm watching at the time).

Noticed it last night and tonight. Not sure if it is weather related or something else.

Just me?

I searched the thread couple times but did not find what I want.
Did anybody find a good indoor antenna (for HDTV) to get WDKY ?? I live in Georgetown, KY and I get CBS, NBC and ABC in digital (HD) thru TERK amplified indoor antenna. Is there anyway to get Fox in HD now that I removed time warner. I have dish but they say I need one more dish to get Lex HD locals. My apartment will allow only one dish.

Appreciate your response.

Nope, jstew, not just you. My Sarah Conner recording on my dish 622 (via OTA) was hosed, constant drop outs and unwatchable.Interesting that it isn't just me. My brother in Nicholasville wasn't getting drop outs (on a 622), but I'm getting them like crazy on both a 722 and 622.

Very frustrating.

Did anybody find a good indoor antenna (for HDTV) to get WDKY ?? I live in Georgetown, KY and I get CBS, NBC and ABC in digital (HD) thru TERK amplified indoor antenna. Is there anyway to get Fox in HD now that I removed time warner. I got lucky with this (http://www.amazon.com/Terk-Technology-HDTVi-Indoor-Antenna/dp/B0001FV36E/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1228245815&sr=8-3) Terk indoor antenna up in the attic (with the VHF arms fully extended in a 90 degree V shape). It is a 2 story house so the antenna is on the '3rd' floor.

My neighbor has the same antenna but cannot get Fox on the 1st floor (no wire access in the attic or 2nd floor for him). So for at least our neighborhood height matters (we have a pretty dense and tree tall line between our houses and the broadcast tower).

Fox is such a PITA to get in Lex you pretty much have to try our your location specifically -- especially for indoor antennas. I suggest getting your antenna locally to test prior to ordering online (I picked mine up from Best Buy).

Sorry I'm not more of a help.

I searched the thread couple times but did not find what I want.
Did anybody find a good indoor antenna (for HDTV) to get WDKY ?? I live in Georgetown, KY and I get CBS, NBC and ABC in digital (HD) thru TERK amplified indoor antenna. Is there anyway to get Fox in HD now that I removed time warner. I have dish but they say I need one more dish to get Lex HD locals. My apartment will allow only one dish.

Appreciate your response.
Does your TERK handle VHF as well as UHF? WDKY actually broadcasts on ch. 4... WKYT, although technically VHF is on Ch. 13 (right at the edge of UHF). Assuming you have a V/U antenna, I'd look at antenna aiming/placement. Clay's Ferry (location of DKY transmitter) would be the furthest location. Do you get KET? It's tower is next to DKY, but it's UHF.

While some UHF antennas do better towards 13 vs. 7, VHF 13 is not all that close to UHF 14. It is at 210-216MHz vs. 470-476MHz.

Also, WDKY/4 has a petition to move to 31, so the best option may be to wait it out:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1499A1.pdf
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520187354

While some UHF antennas do better towards 13 vs. 7, VHF 13 is not all that close to UHF 14. It is at 210-216MHz vs. 470-476MHz.

Also, WDKY/4 has a petition to move to 31, so the best option may be to wait it out:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1499A1.pdf
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520187354
You're right. I don't know why I said that.:eek:

Interesting that it isn't just me. My brother in Nicholasville wasn't getting drop outs (on a 622), but I'm getting them like crazy on both a 722 and 622.

Very frustrating.

I got lucky with this (http://www.amazon.com/Terk-Technology-HDTVi-Indoor-Antenna/dp/B0001FV36E/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1228245815&sr=8-3) Terk indoor antenna up in the attic (with the VHF arms fully extended in a 90 degree V shape). It is a 2 story house so the antenna is on the '3rd' floor.

My neighbor has the same antenna but cannot get Fox on the 1st floor (no wire access in the attic or 2nd floor for him). So for at least our neighborhood height matters (we have a pretty dense and tree tall line between our houses and the broadcast tower).

Fox is such a PITA to get in Lex you pretty much have to try our your location specifically -- especially for indoor antennas. I suggest getting your antenna locally to test prior to ordering online (I picked mine up from Best Buy).

Sorry I'm not more of a help.

Thank you jstew9 and Sam. I got same Terk antenna as you, jstew9. I live in a apartment so I put it next to my TV. As somebody suggested after I scan for digital channels I'll call up channel 4 and see if something comes up. If I get KET, I won't get NBC and ABC in that direction. Sam, Terk antenna is UHF and VHF.

Let me make sure I understand... antenna is U/V.

You CAN get KET, but when you do you lose NBC & ABC. In order to get NBC & ABC you lose KET. Is that correct?

If you can get KET I'd think you can get WDKY. I think you're down to antenna placement Have you tried the antenna without the amplifier? If it's built into the antenna, try unplugging the power connection. I doubt it will fix the problem, but would be good to know.

I live in Richmond, pick up all Lexington stations, and I don't run an amp until after 100ft of cable and before splitters. I would think we're about equidistant (I'm closer to DKY/KET, you're closer to NBC, ABC, CBS). My money is still on antenna placement/aiming.

More testing to try... run the antenna out a window/onto a balcony temporarily. Do a channel scan. Does anything else come in?

Let me make sure I understand... antenna is U/V.

You CAN get KET, but when you do you lose NBC & ABC. In order to get NBC & ABC you lose KET. Is that correct?

Yes.
If you can get KET I'd think you can get WDKY. I think you're down to antenna placement Have you tried the antenna without the amplifier? If it's built into the antenna, try unplugging the power connection. I doubt it will fix the problem, but would be good to know.

I live in Richmond, pick up all Lexington stations, and I don't run an amp until after 100ft of cable and before splitters. I would think we're about equidistant (I'm closer to DKY/KET, you're closer to NBC, ABC, CBS). My money is still on antenna placement/aiming.

More testing to try... run the antenna out a window/onto a balcony temporarily. Do a channel scan. Does anything else come in?

Yes, it's antenna placement. When I get KET I get WDKY but not in HD quality..it's little analog kind. Will try again today.

Yes.


Yes, it's antenna placement. When I get KET I get WDKY but not in HD quality..it's little analog kind. Will try again today.

I've been a big advocate of the $FIVEdollar 83" piece of wire antenna for WDKY for several years now. She's never failed me for WDKY even when I lived in harsh-to-receive-FOX-in-Lexington when I lived in an apartment a mile away from Fayette Mall. See my post here on how to make one:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9139948#post9139948

This antenna is still in use today in my Winchester home. It works even better for me when used with amps. I use it with a a large UHF antenna and Channel Master 7777 preamp in my attic for the best of both worlds (and also a Channel Master 3044 distribution amp).

I've been a big advocate of the $FIVEdollar 83" piece of wire antenna for WDKY for several years now. She's never failed me for WDKY even when I lived in harsh-to-receive-FOX-in-Lexington when I lived in an apartment a mile away from Fayette Mall. See my post here on how to make one:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9139948#post9139948

This antenna is still in use today in my Winchester home. It works even better for me when used with amps. I use it with a a large UHF antenna and Channel Master 7777 preamp in my attic for the best of both worlds (and also a Channel Master 3044 distribution amp).
Ben-

I've looked over the old posts, but I haven't seen a good picture of the home-brew antenna you're talking about. Do you have one you can post?

Thanks

here's a website with instructions for building a folded dipole with a diagram. You can skip the math and make it 83" long end to end and solder a balun in the middle. I have made several using a ""T" made from 1/2 inch pvc pipe with the twinlead inside.

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthews/misc/dipole.html

Ben-

I've looked over the old posts, but I haven't seen a good picture of the home-brew antenna you're talking about. Do you have one you can post?

Thanks

I'd have to climb up into my attic to take a pic, but it looks exactly like this illustration and pinned to a long piece of wood and balanced against the side of the roof across a truss.

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthews/misc/dipole/dipole.gif

Thanks. I get all the Lexington's (including DKY), but would like to see if I can get anything else.:D

Checked Fox again last night, still getting signal drops (75 - 0 - 75 - 0 every couple of seconds). Only on Fox. And on all of my HD tuners (722, 622 and HD HomeRun).

Is there anything atmospheric going on that is going to clear up soon or do I need to get serious about a different antenna (been reading up on BenCJedi's solution)?

When the 75 signal doesn't have drops it is more than enough for solid watching/recording so if this is just a weather/solar issue I'll tough it out for a bit.

Hoping it is weather since I've had my antenna setup with solid Fox now for over a year now.

Anyone have any ideas?

Signal drops like that could be from some electrical device in your home or a nearby home, or could come from thunderstorms, powerlines, etc. With low-VHF, pretty much anything can cause signal problems.

- Trip

I see insight digital 4.0 launched last nite atleast some launched what new channels did you get so far?

I am in Evansville we are last to launch 4.0 wont be till next tuesday.
But they warned me only partial launch the rest very end of dec.

thanks for any info.

Well the picture quality of WTVQ has hit a new low tonight. Whoever the engineer is at this affiliate should be ashamed of themselves. The Missouri - Oklahoma Big 12 Championship looks downright awful. The image is constantly going in and out of focus and the detail, even when the image is in focus, is atrocious. Given the financial issues the station has I doubt we'll see an improvement anytime soon, but maybe if enough people start complaining they will at least look into the issue.

I see insight digital 4.0 launched last nite atleast some launched what new channels did you get so far?


So far, I haven't seen any changes other than analog channel
46 going away, but I don't suscribe to digital cable yet. I'm about
ready to sign up for digital cable, but so far, I'm rather disappointed
with Insight's marketing for the new scheme.

RANT ON:
They are advertising (direct quotes)
* HD Programming fee FREE
* Most HD for FREE YES
* FREE HD Channels on All HD tuner TVs YES
* Digital Converter Box on Every TV Required NO
In addition, the same literature states that if you have one of the
channels such as ESPN/TNT/SCIFI (fifty or so in list, a few
are the locals), then it will be available in HD. The actual channel
lineup states that the channels such as ESPN / TNT, etc will be
provided with classic service, "additional equipment may be
required".

So when I called them up to get the basic digital service with this
"free HD", I'm told that in order to get HD channels, I will be required
to rent an HD/DVR cable box -- at an additional cost! The "standard"
box with Insight Digital 4.0 will not support HD... That's fine, I say,
since my TV supports clear QAM. Unfortunately, the people I've spoken
to so far claim that the "Free HD Channels on All HD Tuner TVs" means
(at best) only the must-carry locals will be available via clear QAM.
(Sidebar -- the "supervisor" I spoke to claimed that QAM was only
for over the air; it was not possible to get any of their HD signals
without renting equipment).

So -- I guess my frustration with them is that they are pulling a
bait and switch -- you can have "free HD" --- but only as long
as you pay extra for their HD box *at* *each* *TV*... So it's
not free after all, even if you suscribe to "Digital 4.0".

RANT OVER...

Has anyone else heard something about what they're really planning
with this upgrade? The marketing certainly implies that we should get
clear QAM / HD versions of numerous channels, but customer service
is claiming the opposite...

Thanks...

Well the picture quality of WTVQ has hit a new low tonight. Whoever the engineer is at this affiliate should be ashamed of themselves. The Missouri - Oklahoma Big 12 Championship looks downright awful. The image is constantly going in and out of focus and the detail, even when the image is in focus, is atrocious. Given the financial issues the station has I doubt we'll see an improvement anytime soon, but maybe if enough people start complaining they will at least look into the issue.

I hear you I stopped watching after it was 24-3 due to the PQ. I was watching OTA...

Well the picture quality of WTVQ has hit a new low tonight. Whoever the engineer is at this affiliate should be ashamed of themselves. The Missouri - Oklahoma Big 12 Championship looks downright awful. The image is constantly going in and out of focus and the detail, even when the image is in focus, is atrocious. Given the financial issues the station has I doubt we'll see an improvement anytime soon, but maybe if enough people start complaining they will at least look into the issue.
Keep in mind they're going to a .3 channel in January. .1 will be normal 'TVQ/ABC programming, .2 will by MyNetwork/'TVQ news reruns and .3 will be weather.

Well the picture quality of WTVQ has hit a new low tonight. Whoever the engineer is at this affiliate should be ashamed of themselves. The Missouri - Oklahoma Big 12 Championship looks downright awful. The image is constantly going in and out of focus and the detail, even when the image is in focus, is atrocious. Given the financial issues the station has I doubt we'll see an improvement anytime soon, but maybe if enough people start complaining they will at least look into the issue.

It can be extremely difficult to pinpoint the problems you are seeing. That said, and from what you describe, it's probably not attributable to overcompression of the signal (and thus may have nothing to do with the local station). ABC sports commonly will look softer compared to ESPN (for whatever reason). The focus issue commonly occurs with different cameras at the site in my experience. Sometimes endzone cameras will be SD cameras (common on FOX especially).

720p should be less prone to overcompression than 1080i in general. When artifacts do occur, it should mostly be in the form of mosquito noise-type artifacting. This will be easiest to see around text and logos but could conceivably cause some blurring of detail. If you look close, and blurring isn't associated with mosquito noise, than it's probably not due to overcompression. Even what mosquito noise is there may or may not be a local station issue.

1080i overcompression will show mosquito noise but also tends to show more macroblocking. Macroblocking looks like the image "breaking up" into small squares and occurs mostly with fast motion/camera pans.

So, did that clear things up for you?

See my first sentence.:)

For me, the ABC game looked a little sharper (for ABC) than usual last night. There was still the typical ABC "lack of sharpness" apparent. I view both via OTA and via D* MPEG4 distant HD networks. FYI I watch a 110 inch screen from a 1080p front pj at about 15 feet away.

I can tell you that on the whole it's been very difficult for me to see any consistent differences between an OTA signal and that from D* and thus my conclusion has been there aren't a whole lot of compression artifacts that are seen purely as a result of the local station. Either that, or the resulting compression is nearly identical from all sources and so it's a "wash".

I understand there can be many factors that affect the HD picture quality. However if you watch the same game clips on SportsCenter in HD, there is no lack of focus or sharpness. This tells me that the primary feed is fine and something it going on at the affiliate level. Of course I could be wrong but that conclusion makes sense to me.

It can be extremely difficult to pinpoint the problems you are seeing.

I watched a few seconds/minutes of one of the ABC games last night ... It looked a bit like the return of the "prefilter" issue. The "bottom line" was going fuzzy quite often. Of course, this could also be due to insufficient bandwidth.

Am I going to have to rely on yet another Louisville (WHAS) station? ... Stay tuned. :(

I understand there can be many factors that affect the HD picture quality. However if you watch the same game clips on SportsCenter in HD, there is no lack of focus or sharpness. This tells me that the primary feed is fine and something it going on at the affiliate level. Of course I could be wrong but that conclusion makes sense to me.

The ESPN highlights often look sharper for both FOX and ABC highlights. Many others have noted this as well. This certainly is not due to any local station issue.

I watched a few seconds/minutes of one of the ABC games last night ... It looked a bit like the return of the "prefilter" issue. The "bottom line" was going fuzzy quite often. Of course, this could also be due to insufficient bandwidth.

Am I going to have to rely on yet another Louisville (WHAS) station? ... Stay tuned. :(

I don't think local bandwidth is the issue. I have an ABC station OTA from Knoxville which broadcasts only a weather subchannel. For 720p, this is plenty of bandwidth. The image from the HD distant networks through D* is indistinguishable and I see the ABC "blurriness" on both. It's most noticeable with sports like basketball and football.

If you have D* Sunday Ticket, you'll notice a significant variation in the sharpness of the image from both CBS and FOX depending on what game you are watching. Some of the FOX games can look more like 480p upconverts while some look excellent. Again, I can switch to OTA from Knoxville where their FOX has no subchannel and not see a difference.

Again, I can switch to OTA from Knoxville where their FOX has no subchannel and not see a difference.
FOX stations use the FOX splicer for distribution, so during FOX HD programming all affiliates are using the same bandwidth for HD. The splicer leaves room for a subchannel regardless of whether the affiliate uses it. To be thoroughly clear though, FOX affiliates showing different FOX network feeds (for example two stations showing different FOX NFL games) obviously will vary because they are passing through a different feed. Most of the difference in quality in FOX HD (one NFL game looking better than another, etc.) can be traced to the actual production of that particular game.

From the HL
http://www.kentucky.com/101/story/619448.html

CBS and The CW affiliate WKYT-27

Three channels: CBS HD programming is shown in 720p, though CBS sends it to WKYT in 1080i. WKYT downgrades it to be able to show The CW's HD programming in 720p on a second digital channel. It also operates a weather radar channel, which is in 480i. Beginning Dec. 13, WKYT will no longer broadcast The CW's HD programming in 720p, instead downgrading it to 480i. It's being done to improve the quality of the CBS HD programming, which will continue to be shown in 720p

Most of the difference in quality in FOX HD (one NFL game looking better than another, etc.) can be traced to the actual production of that particular game.

From my experience, I'd say that holds true for the most part with all (or at least it's not due to local station factors).

The major exception of course may well be WKYT although I don't watch their HD so can't say from experience.

From the HL
http://www.kentucky.com/101/story/619448.html

CBS and The CW affiliate WKYT-27

Three channels: CBS HD programming is shown in 720p, though CBS sends it to WKYT in 1080i. WKYT downgrades it to be able to show The CW's HD programming in 720p on a second digital channel. It also operates a weather radar channel, which is in 480i. Beginning Dec. 13, WKYT will no longer broadcast The CW's HD programming in 720p, instead downgrading it to 480i. It's being done to improve the quality of the CBS HD programming, which will continue to be shown in 720p

I couldn't get to the link, but if this is true then it's great news. While I'd ultimately prefer to see the unconverted 1080i signal from CBS, giving the primary channel more bandwidth is always a welcome thing in my book! Hopefully this addresses the PQ issues WKTY is having.

Great news unless you watch anything on the CW. I wonder if they will still pass on the HD CW feed to the cable or sat companies.

Great news unless you watch anything on the CW. I wonder if they will still pass on the HD CW feed to the cable or sat companies.

Meh .... just point your trusty CM4228 antenna west toward a point half way between Bardstown and Campbellville, then tune to ch 19.

Great news unless you watch anything on the CW. I wonder if they will still pass on the HD CW feed to the cable or sat companies.
I'm pretty sure they can't pass along to the sat companies... both Dish & Direct use OTA receivers in town and pass the signals on to Colorado. Insight has fiber from all three stations, so maybe they can pass it to Insight, but I'd say anyone outside of Fayette county will see the loss in quality on CW.

I just noticed that my cable card tuners have picked up all the new Lexington Insight HD channels this evening...

902 Fox News Channel HD
903 Fox Business HD
904 CNN HD
905 CNBC HD
906 WLEX (NBC) HD
908 WTVQ (ABC) HD
910 WKDY (FOX) HD
912 WKYT (CBS) HD
918 KET KY HD
922 ESPNU HD
923 ESPN HD
924 ESPN2 HD
925 TNT in HD
926 NFL Network HD
927 ESPNEWS HD
928 HDNET (*HDPak)
929 Special Event HD
931 NatGeo HD
932 Animal Planet HD
933 TLC HD
934 The Science Channel HD
935 HD Theatre (*HDPak)
936 Discovery Channel HD
937 Universal HD (*HDPak)
938 USA Network HD
939 TBS HD
941 FX HD
945 Palladia HD
946 History HD
947 A&E HD
949 HDNet Movies (*HDPak)
955 AMC HD
969 Speed Channel HD
974 The Weather Channel HD
976 Travel Channel HD
979 Disney Channel HD
983 HGTV HD
984 Food Network HD
991 Bravo HD
996 Sci-Fi Channel HD

Beginning Dec. 13, WKYT will no longer broadcast The CW's HD programming in 720p, instead downgrading it to 480i. It's being done to improve the quality of the CBS HD programming, which will continue to be shown in 720p

Oh this is horrible news if you watch CW! No more Smallville in HD or 90210 in HD for my wife!! I can only get WBKI in Winchester really late at night on a good night when that programming is long over.

CWKYT in HD isn't terrible PQ. I got used to that and CBS-HD the way they have been and now they want to all go messing around and degrading CW like that. :(
I hope they don't go passing CW in HD to the cable systems just so cable customers get pissed off too.

If they pass CW in HD to cable that would be shady to me. It would mean an exclusive agreement with cable companies to carry the HD signal ONLY which could be seen as a ploy for the cable companies to increase their customer base for those customers that want the HD signal.

Why can't WBKI just increase power and WKYT leave CW alone if they want to piss all over it anyway?

Here's the story on google cache:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:r1yV0f0v8eQJ:www.kentucky.com/101/story/619448.html+http://www.kentucky.com/101/story/619448.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

So if the article was pulled.. maybe it isn't true?

CWKYT in HD isn't terrible PQ. I got used to that and CBS-HD the way they have been and now they want to all go messing around and degrading CW like that. :(

Ooh ... I hate to say it, but, this would appear to be a case of you (really, really) don't realize what you're missing.

Ooh ... I hate to say it, but, this would appear to be a case of you (really, really) don't realize what you're missing.

I'd agree. My parents are pulling 1080i CBS from WLKY in Louisville and it looks miles better than the 720p signal from WKYT. Hopefully giving the signal more bandwith will at least make the PQ better.

Ooh ... I hate to say it, but, this would appear to be a case of you (really, really) don't realize what you're missing.

My 55" Projection 1080i set is dated and my 2yo 32" LCD is well just 32".. higher res wouldn't make much of a difference, but going to 480i would be noticeable on my sets. Perhaps I have just become complacent as I wouldn't gain much on my screens by CBS getting higher bitrate. I felt WKYT struck a good balance to be able to support two HD subchannels on the same stream. I tried to email the author of that article with his email posted on an article that he wrote in October, but it bounced back and says he doesn't exist. Neither does the article, so I wonder what happened to him. Maybe he made that part up and got 'let go'. ;)

I guess if I want Smallville in HD, I'll have to dl it from online sources. Shame I have to resort to stealing though because our local affiliate blocked WBKI from extending their range of CW to reliably broadcast HD this far out east. Too bad OTA isn't mpeg-4. Then both CBS and CW could easily go HD on the same stream. If the government were smart they would have required all those converter boxes to also be future-ready for mpeg-4.

My 55" Projection 1080i set is dated and my 2yo 32" LCD is well just 32".. higher res wouldn't make much of a difference, but going to 480i would be noticeable on my sets.

Tune that 55"'er up and you'd have no trouble telling the difference between WLKY/WBKI vs. WKYT. :)

Shame I have to resort to stealing though because our local affiliate blocked WBKI from extending their range of CW to reliably broadcast HD this far out east.

I think things will improve after Feb17 when WBKI should be able to dump their analog antenna and raise their digital antenna to full hight (right now it's only about half way up the tower.)

Tune that 55"'er up and you'd have no trouble telling the difference between WLKY/WBKI vs. WKYT. :)

Yeah, time to locate the Sony HDTV projection set tweak guide that I have somewhere and get back into service mode to fix her up. ;) I've not done that in years. A convergence is probably in need. If I can figure out how to remove the front screen without breaking it, I bet there is thick dust all over the mirrors and lamps too.

I think things will improve after Feb17 when WBKI should be able to dump their analog antenna and raise their digital antenna to full hight (right now it's only about half way up the tower.)

So there is hope and I might not need to go all 'rebel' with the MKVs online to enjoy myfavorite programming in HD! ;)

Thank you for your email concerning CWkyt. The article you refer to is
correct in that we will be changing our CW channel from HD to SD this
weekend. We are sorry for the inconvenience that this may cause some of
our viewers, but because the viewership of our CW channel is relatively
low compared to the viewership of our primary channel that carries our
local news and CBS programming in HD, the decision was made to help
improve the quality of our video on the channel with the most
viewership. It is unfortunate that this decision has to be made, but we
need to make the change based on the number of viewers that continue to
comment on the quality of the video on our primary channel.

Again, thank you for your email and thank you for watching WKYT and
CWkyt.

Mike Kanarek
WKYT-TV

Bummer. It's happening. I think I am the only one that appreciated CW in HD in central Kentucky. lol
Hopefully WBKI raises their antenna or I might need to break the neighborhood deed of restrictions and overcome my fear of falling off my house to move my antenna array outside the attic. Since my antenna is much larger than 24" it would be breaking the neighborhood restriction (and my house would stick out like a sore thumb)

Since my antenna is much larger than 24" it would be breaking the neighborhood restriction (and my house would stick out like a sore thumb)That restriction is illegal and you can safely ignore it.

The term to look for is the FCC's OTARD rule.

- Trip

Yep, I always keep the link handy... http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

I actually e-mailed Mike a few weeks ago. I'm glad they are listening the the majority of the complaints about their channel. While I don't like to see the HD content in Lexington decrease, I'm more picky about the quality of content that is provided. I guess we'll see how much better the PQ is this Sunday during the NFL games.

I'm not so much worried about the neighborhood deed of restrictions, but convincing my wife it is a good idea. ;)

I pay enough tax to justify putting it on my roof. :) Clark county decreed my home value to have increased (umm.. do they live in the same economy as the rest of us?, I know decreased home sales growth in the county and their need to make up the revenue somehow, but as if life wasn't already expensive). Sorry off topic, but I had to rank. :)

I'm sure the deed was written with satellite dish antennas in mind because 24" for a standard roof aerial is puny. The satellite companies don't offer CW in HD, nor does Time Warner.

I'm in the minority here, but I hope the WDKY application goes straight to 'file 13.'

I'll never snag [31].

(I adjusted it since at the time of the quote, it was 46.)

Are you the fellow who's sent comments to the FCC regarding the application?

http://www.rabbitears.info/chchg.php

I don't know if anyone's been keeping up, but if you look on my page there and scroll down to WDKY, you'll see there's a bit of a back-and-forth going on over WDKY's move to 31. A Jonathan Dobson is arguing that remaining on channel 4 is in the public interest more so than moving to channel 31 (though I am unable to locate his original letter to determine just what it is that he argued).

I think that WDKY could have made a stronger case in their reply comments. Magic words include "mobile DTV."

- Trip

That restriction is illegal and you can safely ignore it.

Yep, I always keep the link handy... http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
My coworkers and I had a quick discussion on this... how does the FCC have jurisdiction over a HOA? Has this actually been fought in a court? The link to the FCC page has further links to rulings, but it looks like those rulings are by the FCC.

I'm sure the deed was written with satellite dish antennas in mind because 24" for a standard roof aerial is puny. The satellite companies don't offer CW in HD, nor does Time Warner.They can restrict the size of a dish to one meter (just over 39"). They cannot restrict it to 24". They cannot restrict the size of an OTA antenna whatsoever, unless there is a safety issue, but the burden of proof is on THEM to prove that it is indeed a safety issue.

My coworkers and I had a quick discussion on this... how does the FCC have jurisdiction over a HOA? Has this actually been fought in a court? The link to the FCC page has further links to rulings, but it looks like those rulings are by the FCC.
Federal > State > Local > HOA.

This is about as clear cut as it gets. If they HOA or a local government tries to fight you on this, they will lose.

I actually e-mailed Mike a few weeks ago. I'm glad they are listening the the majority of the complaints about their channel. While I don't like to see the HD content in Lexington decrease, I'm more picky about the quality of content that is provided. I guess we'll see how much better the PQ is this Sunday during the NFL games.

It's a no win situation ... no matter what they do, they still won't be able to match WLKY/WBKI. OTOH, perhaps they could be convinced to repeat the CW programming in HD during the wee-hours for the DVR enabled among us?

Federal > State > Local > HOA.

This is about as clear cut as it gets. If they HOA or a local government tries to fight you on this, they will lose.
I think my coworkers' point is what power the FCC has over HOA. Can the FAA come in and say you can't park on the street? Can the Treasury Dept say HOA can't limit what kind of fences people put up?

Has this been fought in court?

The satellite companies don't offer CW in HD, nor does Time Warner.Nor will WKYT and by extension, Insight.:D

It's a no win situation ... no matter what they do, they still won't be able to match WLKY/WBKI. OTOH, perhaps they could be convinced to repeat the CW programming in HD during the wee-hours for the DVR enabled among us?

That's a nice idea, but would interfere with selling jewelry and infomercials late at night. lol

Nor will WKYT and by extension, Insight.:D

DN does have the Superstations package with CW. I wonder if DN is going to give those superstations HD treatment. If that's the case, then CW in HD will be available over satellite.

I wrote to WBKI to ask if they have post 2/17/09 plans for their transmitter (move it up higher on the tower, beef up the power maybe?). WKYT might be a little ticked if WBKI does extend their range, as WKYT would lose the advertising bucks they are getting from CWKYT if OTA viewers go for WBKI. I don't think enough people care that CWKYT is going standard definition. If enough do care, then they'd boycott their programming and hence the local advertisers would stop paying WKYT to show their ads on CWKYT. I don't see that happening though.

I think my coworkers' point is what power the FCC has over HOA. Can the FAA come in and say you can't park on the street? Can the Treasury Dept say HOA can't limit what kind of fences people put up?

Has this been fought in court?Maybe if I explain it this way it will make sense... What power does the HOA have over you? If you refuse to comply with one of their rules, they have to take legal action, right? The HOA needs legal justification to take any action. In my experience just showing the HOA the FCC OTARD rule (which they've probably already seen but just choose to not revise their rules to be compliant hoping most homeowners won't know/discover the OTARD rule) is enough for them to back down. It has been fought in court and the homeowner always wins if he is in compliance with the stipulations put forth by the FCC.


Also, just in case you were wondering what happens if an association would try to challenge the FCC's authority here, you can read this case law which shows the petition by the Building Owners and Managers Association being denied.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=991009A

Several trade associations representing real estate owners and property managers1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=991009A#Footnote1) appeal the Second OTARD Order, contending that the rule, as amended, is invalid on its face. They contend, first, that the Commission exceeded its statuto- ry authority in extending the OTARD rule to leased property; second, that the amended rule violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;2 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=991009A#Footnote2) and third, if there is no taking, that the Commission acted arbi- trarily and capriciously in extending the rule to leaseholds. Finding unpersuasive these facial challenges to the amended OTARD rule, we deny the petition.

Edit/Update: Just in case you're questioning where the FCC's authority on this comes from, it comes from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which was passed by Congress and directs the FCC to enact regulations that prohibit restrictions on a viewer's ability to receive video programming through over the air and satellite devices.

DN does have the Superstations package with CW. I wonder if DN is going to give those superstations HD treatment. If that's the case, then CW in HD will be available over satellite.
I have Dish (with Superstations PKG) and my HD is getting installed tomorrow. I'll try to remember to ask. Do we know if those Superstations are HD local to local?


Edit/Update: Just in case you're questioning where the FCC's authority on this comes from, it comes from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which was passed by Congress and directs the FCC to enact regulations that prohibit restrictions on a viewer's ability to receive video programming through over the air and satellite devices.
[/SIZE]THAT'S what I was looking for. Thanks

I don't know if anyone's been keeping up,


Oh yes. I've been reading the comments in ECFS for the WSYX and WDKY channel change proceedings throughout ....

I wasn't going to comment on recent activity here, but since you brought it up ;)


(though I am unable to locate his original letter to determine just what it is that he argued).


I'd like to read that, too. I couldn't find (the october "writing to FCC" he mentioned) it either ...


I think that WDKY could have made a stronger case in their reply comments. Magic words include "mobile DTV."


I've been thinking the same thing on both points, and all along ("speculation" of course<g>) concerning the magic words and both WDKY and WSYX's channel petitions, and the timing involved .... WDKY could have tried to get off 4(again, as they've tried before+it probably would have been better if it had worked out back then) in Channel elections, including 3rd round. I also wonder what sort of receive antennas will be used for the handheld M/H devices? Certianly likely to be small antennas, certianly perhaps possibly antennas which will work better on UHF than VHF, and probably likely to work better on VHF-HI than VHF-LO .....

But, if M/H is involved in them wanting these station on UHF, why not just come out and tell FCC so, I wonder ? It's already known they are mobile DTV proponents ...

More on this in a bit in more detail, but basically, Concerning some of WDKY's most recent reply comments, and Mr. Dobson's reception, there seems to me to be quite a bit of speculation involved on THEIR part. I did not, however, get the impression Mr. Dobson was merely "speculating". Instead, my impression of his comments in the letter was he was speaking of practical experience of VHF vs. UHF reception at his specific receive location, as well as in general, locations with UHF reception imparied by local terrain issues.

Now, Personally, I think in both cases (WDKY/WSYX), their channel change petitions for UHF channel allocations are a good idea. For WDKY, mainly because Lexington is analog UHF only market, and for that matter, for that reason I also think it would be best if WKYT considered trying to move to UHF as well. For WSYX, because WSYX-DT is the only VHF DTV in Columbus market. Furthermore, I do agree with them regarding the issues for consumers regarding the marketing and availability from many retailers of MANY antennas out there that are UHF only, or which provide relatively poor performance on VHF.

That being said, Regarding the WDKY channel change proceeding, what little we can read of them, I think Mr. Dobson makes some good, valid points. Some have indeed already invested in equipment to receive WDKY-DT on Lo-VHF, including, apparently, Mr. Dobson ---- And certianly, one can find appropriate VHF and VHF/UHF antennas, just not maybe at your local Walmart other than mostly indoor antennas with VHF "rabbit ears". And, it's certianly very possible others besides Mr. Dobson could very well lose service from WDKY-DT on UHF involving terrain blockage issues near the specific receive location and certian propagation characteristics of lo-VHF signals which sometimes allow for even relatively distant lo-VHF signals to be receivable, but not signals on higher frequencies.

But, the comments filed by WDKY or WSYX ..... Here are a few thoughts :

#1). Taken together(regarding both WDKY/WSYX), the way I read it, the general "gist" of what they're arguing for seems to be that they don't think VHF (including Hi-VHF regarding WSYX) is suitable for DTV broadcasting. If so, I'm not sure that is going to fly ...

#2). There are the attachment of "signal reports" from viewers with both WDKY/WSYX filings in an attempt to back up their assertions the VHF channel alloctions are unsuitable for them. Without, in most cases, information provided on what type of receive antenna setup is being utilized. UHF only or VHF/UHF antenna? Indoors/outdoors ? Does the receive antenna/installation meet FCC planning factors for DTV reception ? In one case, information is suppied on the type of antenna used, and it would not be an antenna which would meet those planning factors .... One thing is for sure, I'm going to think twice about sending signal reports to stations because of this from now on without at the very least including a notice that I will not allow, without explicit permission from myself for my comments to be included in filings to FCC in order to support a certian position on any given matter ....

#3). In WDKY's reply comments involving Mr. Dobson's comments, they mention the predicted service contour of the proposed channel 31 facility covering the Manchester, KY area, apparently as based on the "contour" methodogy(not taking irregular terrain into account). So, they apparently did not attempt to investigate whether or not issues such as terrain blockage might be involved for "fringe" areas of their service area and if/where local terrain issues may be involved, or for Mr. Dobson's specific receive location regarding reception of WDKY-DT on 31 vs. WDKY-DT on 4. Yet, Some of Mr. Dobson's comments(and again unfortunetly the latest letter is all we can read) seem to suggest he is currently receiving WDKY-DT on 4, but is apparently having some issues with their analog signal on 56, and his comments might also suggest it's possible he may be having issues achieving reliable reception other Lexington UHF stations as well.

In any case, asserting in a "matter of fact" way that his comments are purely speculative, without apparently knowing whether and not that is indeed true(no appropriate field test data from Mr. dobson's receive location/etc), and attempting to write them off as purely "speculative", IMO, is not only very inconsiderate towards someone who is one of their viewers and whom has even gone to the extra effort to participate in this matter, I believe it is also a mistake which should be recognized as such ....

In other words, I think they should have taken the high road ..... Just my opinion though of course, and these days, who knows what FCC will do ....

Just wanted to say I'm really happy CBS is finally converting over to a better HD feed. Sorry for those of you who are losing the CW, hopefully an alternative comes up.

Has anyone talked with ever who's in charge over at 36 ABC lately? The constant blur / focus issues with the Saturday night football games, has turned me off of those late night games this year. It's very distracting and very annoying, and I'll be boycotting any bowl game they show or any sports programming until it gets fixed.

Are you the fellow who's sent comments to the FCC regarding the application?

Yes, that's me.

I am unable to locate his original letter to determine just what it is that he argued.

Here's the text of my initial writing. I have no idea why it's not showing up.

Secretary Dortch:

It has come to my attention that WDKY has petitioned the FCC for a move of its digital broadcast off of VHF Channel 4 to a UHF channel.

It is my sincere hope that WDKY would stay on Channel 4. Because of the VHF band’s far more favorable propagation characteristics relative to UHF, WDKY’s digital signal is the only one from the Lexington market to achieve any serious penetration into the mountains of Eastern Kentucky. Here at my home in Manchester, WDKY booms in; the other Lexington digital broadcasts, all on UHF, don’t register.

Eastern Kentucky is terribly underserved by digital commercial broadcasts. A switch to UHF by WDKY would deal a huge blow to free, over-the-air broadcast television selection here, and would in my opinion constitute a severe degradation of WDKY’s usefulness to this region so far as public service is concerned.

In my opinion, the FCC erred in the early days of Lexington’s broadcast history by not assigning more far-reaching VHF channels for the benefit of the mountain people. WDKY’s digital assignment to Channel 4 represents a positive change from those days, and should not be reversed.

In any case, asserting in a "matter of fact" way that his comments are purely speculative, without apparently knowing whether and not that is indeed true(no appropriate field test data from Mr. dobson's receive location/etc), and attempting to write them off as purely "speculative", IMO, is not only very inconsiderate towards someone who is one of their viewers and whom has even gone to the extra effort to participate in this matter, I believe it is also a mistake which should be recognized as such ....

In other words, I think they should have taken the high road ..... Just my opinion though of course, and these days, who knows what FCC will do ....

I took no offense to it, but I too think it's a mistake on their part. My dismal real-world experience with Lexington's other UHF digitals is what led me to write, not "speculative" delusions. Again, is it all that "speculative" to assume that someone dealing with this terrain might prefer VHF's tendency to "bend?"

http://www.tvfool.com/modeling/tmp/04466c1f66/PRE-WDKY-DT.png

I definitely feel I made some mistakes as well. I wish I had referenced hard data regarding the propagation characteristics of VHF vs. UHF, the channel selections of other stations with similar terrain obstacles like WYMT, WBIR and WCYB, and perhaps even thrown in some TVfool signal maps from my reception location.

I also should have anticipated that they'd throw in complaints from 50 people trying to receive a VHF-lo station with UHF rigs. By my count, only one of those people was even working with the proper equipment, and several were writing to complain about DirecTV's lack of local HD offerings for Lexington.

Yes, that's me.

Well I hate to be a wet blanket, but speaking as a resident of the actual community of license for WDKY ... (you know the people who are supposed to be served no matter what) ... I can only say that VHF-lo is a disaster for us. I have been struggling with getting clean, usable reception from WDKY-DT since the day they first signed on the air from the original broadcast site. I now use a proper outdoor, roof mounted VHF-lo yagi and still have dropouts, particularly during severe weather situations. The full power UHF's are no trouble in the same conditions.

In short, if you were really interested in the "public good (= most people served,)" I'd recommend that you lobby for repeaters out there in the hills and stop being an obstructionist toward the rest of us. :)

It is obvious WDKY cannot serve the same area on digital channel 4 as it did on analog channel 56. I can't get it reliably with a huge VHF-lo antenna, and I'm only a few miles from the tower. Going to UHF 31 will allow WDKY to more closely match the coverage it has with it's analog signal, reaching much more of it's current viewers and not requiring them to install new antennas. I hope the petition passes soon.

I would have liked to have seen more data as respects the antennas used in trying to pick up WDKY/4. I suspect that most were using set-top rabbit/ear loop combos, but one respondent indicated that he was using a 40" boom antenna with 17 elements. That must be the RS UHF only antenna. He was also trying to point it to Danville, which is not where the tower is located (though Danville is the COL).

Most of the complaints were from the West of the tower, which is where WDKY is weakest. In areas like Danville and Versailles, less than 5kW is being directed towards them. Manchester receives almost the full 26.5kW.

While I agree that the move to 31 would be better for most, I had to laugh at WDKY stating that the viewer in Manchester was basing his views on "speculation" that he would not receive service since he is in the "contour." The personal information disclosed by the station will also give me pause about giving up any more than my zip code when providing reports.

DTV needs far more translators than analog, but stations are reluctant to go to these lengths. With fewer channels available, DTS is probably the better approach, but I'm not seeing much movement on that front yet.

Edit: Added a terrain view for UHF 31 towards Manchester, assuming a ND pattern at 1000kW. "Tough" is an understatement. Low VHF 4 is about 14dB stronger there (assuming no electrical noise, etc.)

I also should have anticipated that they'd throw in complaints from 50 people trying to receive a VHF-lo station with UHF rigs. By my count, only one of those people was even working with the proper equipment, and several were writing to complain about DirecTV's lack of local HD offerings for Lexington.

There's no doubt that vhf-lo "gets out" better than vhf-hi or uhf. I can get an intermittent signal from WDKY 4 here with a 5 element cut channel 4 antenna/preamp, yet both analog 46, 56 as well as digital 42 has been basically unreceivable under normal conditions with a uhf quad. The issue is with vhf lo in general providing a less consistent break-up free signal to the entire coverage area. The cliff phenomenon with digital has obviated the advantage vhf lo has with signal propagation.

I can only say that VHF-lo is a disaster for us. I have been struggling with getting clean, usable reception from WDKY-DT since the day they first signed on the air from the original broadcast site. I now use a proper outdoor, roof mounted VHF-lo yagi and still have dropouts, particularly during severe weather situations. The full power UHF's are no trouble in the same conditions.


That's along the lines of the sort of argument(the various interference issues/electrical noise/etc) which I think could have served them well, but the way I read it WDKY hasn't touched much upon with any details in their comments to FCC on the matter, nor have they provided any defintitive evidence in that regard to support their arguements/comments in the matter.


In short, if you were really interested in the "public good (= most people served,)" I'd recommend that you lobby for repeaters out there in the hills and stop being an obstructionist toward the rest of us. :)


First, I'd recommend YOU should have filed your comments with FCC if you wanted to support their petition, rather than call someone who has participated with their contribution to the proceeding an "obstructionist" for stating his position on the matter.

What you seem to be missing is that in severe terrain obstructed locations(including oftentimes within stations predicted service contours), VHF (and lo-VHF in particular) are sometimes the *ONLY* receivable OTA TV signals, including for sources of news and emergency information. I've experienced such situations first hand. To call someone who is in such a circumstance, and whom has purchased equipment to receive such signals, and whom has went to the time/effort to participate in a FCC proceeding involved, an "obstructionist" is going a little far, don't you think? I suspect you might feel a little differently about it if you were in such a situation ...

Most Stations aren't going to build multiple repeaters to serve a few households in each and every "holler" involved .... And, users in such circumstances(although likely somewhat few in number within or near say, WDKY's predicted service area) typically are often not served by services such as cable(some aren't served by DBS either, due to lack of LOS to the birds), and are not usually going to be able to run feedlines 1'000's of feet or more to antennas on ridges, or "move" the TV to the ridge (believe it or not, I've seen it done, however) ....

As far as "most people served", regardless of the predicted-noise limited service contours, to say their UHF signal will serve more than the lo-VHF signal in this case is hilarious, IMO .... I'm 118 MILES away from them, and using an antenna setup which is very much "in the range" of FCC planning factors for DTV reception(not anything more) and the signal is allways detectable to some extent, and it is common to decode them for hours on end(solidly) on a daily basis(no, not every day, but it doesn't take what I'd call "enhanced signal propagation" conditions, either) .... If you go back in this thread, you will even find my report from Early 2005 of their first "test" of their "full power" DTV signal from the New tower location .... That sort of thing just does not happen on hi-VHF or UHF, for the same reason why severe terrain obstructions *within* the predicted service contour can mean useable signal for VHF station, and no reception from UHF stations.

Now, to contend that lo-VHF is not "suitable" for DTV because of various interference issues involved and because such interference often means "dropouts"/inability to see the picture at all with DTV, even in strong signal areas and with the use of receive antennas which meet FCC planning factors for DTV reception --- is saying something entirely different, and is saying something that most, Including myself, even though I must say I have not seen much evidence of it in my particular situation involving WEAK signal reception of WDKY-DT would (mostly in my case)agree with ...

Edit: Added a terrain view for UHF 31 towards Manchester, assuming a ND pattern at 1000kW. "Tough" is an understatement. Low VHF 4 is about 14dB stronger there (assuming no electrical noise, etc.)


I also wonder if someone from WDKY could verify the information you are using from FCC which describes their facilities is correct ? (such as involving beam tilt, antenna pattern/etc) .... Sometimes, I'm not so sure the "actual" world installation is allways 100% up to the "specs" shown on stations operating permit ....


The cliff phenomenon with digital has obviated the advantage vhf lo has with signal propagation.

The advantage is still there, what is different vs. analog is that interference (such as impulse noise interference) will often mean complete dropout of picture. Other than from natural source ("lightning") such interference is for the most part not much of an issue here currently with the use of a outdoor antenna. And even then, I can't say I've seen much of an issue with it regarding decoding weak signal from WDKY-DT solidly.

I don't know/can't explain how it occured, but I've even seen WAVE analog unuable (even the audio) due to lightning from storms, but still solidly decodeded WDKY-DT ... I've also seen nearby lightning hits(and ingition system a neighbor's lawn mower, or a paper shredder being turned on) make WDKY-DT (and MUCH stronger signal from local WCPO-DT 10 on Hi-VHF, or even a UHF signal on 24) drop below threshold, but regarding WDKY, not as often as I would have thought would be the case ....

The advantage is still there, what is different vs. analog is that interference (such as impulse noise interference) will often mean complete dropout of picture.


That IS the cliff phenomenon as I understand it. The digital picture is either "not there" or "there" regardless of the reason behind the signal drop. Distant analog VHF lo signals of the past which provided a mulitpathed/noisy but watchable image will not provide a watchable digital picture under the same conditions.

What you seem to be missing is that in severe terrain obstructed locations(including oftentimes within stations predicted service contours), VHF (and lo-VHF in particular) are sometimes the *ONLY* receivable OTA TV signals, including for sources of news and emergency information. I've experienced such situations first hand. To call someone who is in such a circumstance, and whom has purchased equipment to receive such signals, and whom has went to the time/effort to participate in a FCC proceeding involved, an "obstructionist" is going a little far, don't you think?

First, something tells me kycubsfan does not fit that description.

Second, the situation you describe may still technically exist in rare instances but I think you are overestimating the real number of persons actually fitting these criteria even in remote areas. Even then, considering the cliff effect, vhf-lo will not provide the answer. The argument you make might work better in favor of keeping analog around though.:)

In short, if you were really interested in the "public good (= most people served,)" I'd recommend that you lobby for repeaters out there in the hills and stop being an obstructionist toward the rest of us. :)

I'm just exercising my right to give my take. I mean no malice to my fellow DTV enthusiasts.

First, something tells me kycubsfan does not fit that description.

Of course, I do have other means of communication besides OTA, but VHF DTV stations WDKY and WYMT are currently my only means of getting HD programming from local sources.

Of course, I do have other means of communication besides OTA, but VHF DTV stations WDKY and WYMT are currently my only means of getting HD programming from local sources.

Have you tried Knoxville or Bristol?

Have you tried Knoxville or Bristol?

I've had no luck with them yet. I have a VIP-307SR waiting in the wings for WBIR and WCYB's return to 10 and 5, respectively.

I think you are overestimating the real number of persons actually fitting these criteria even in remote areas.


No. I didn't say there were many, I don't think there are. And, in this thread I provided no estimate of "the real number" of persons in such circumstances(I did in another recent post in another thread, in which I said "the good news is there aren't many of these viewers), so you "think" incorrectly.

That doesn't change the situation, if you ARE in such a circumstance.


Even then, considering the cliff effect, vhf-lo will not provide the answer.


If you can receive/decode the lo-VHF DTV signal and not Hi-VHF or UHF signals, it's an answer that works, and is a way you can receive TV, what I'm saying is nothing more and nothing less than that.

Definition for Obviate = to anticipate and dispose of beforehand; make unnecessary.

"Make unnecessary" for most, yes, perhaps. For everyone? No, and that was my point.



The argument you make might work better in favor of keeping analog around though.:)

First of all, I'm not really making an "arguement". Analog is going away, and That's for the folks here who like to "bicker" about things, I do not. And, Again, my personal opinion is I think it would be best for WDKY to move to UHF, including partly regarding the various interference issues that are an issue for lo-VHF DTV.

Nevertheless, things are the way they are, and all I'm saying is there are folks who *will* lose their OTA service alltoghether without Lo-VHF signals. It's going to happen, I don't particularly have an issue with it --- but there *IS* a reason to understand it, and that it is not as "cut and dry" of a situation as some people seem to think. I'm also saying Kycubsfan points regarding his comments to FCC are viable concerns involved.

And, I'm also saying because it's DTV with the "cliff effect" does not mean folks in such circumstances won't be be able to receive or decode lo-VHF DTV signals, they often would be able to. If that weren't true, I'd never decode WDKY-DT solidly here.

What is better in such situations, to be able to receive TV with an occasional "dropout" when a nearby lightning strike hits, or to have no TV reception possible at all ?

Do you think people living in Hollers in appalachia are going to somehow "go away" with analog TV, or suddenly receive cable service or UHF translators on every hill will be built ?

When I was in such a location at a friend's cabin during a major flood event in 1997, where do you think I and neigboors (who actually live there) went for information on what was going on? Tuning to A lo-VHF OTA signal with portable, battery powered TV's (power was out) was one of the places, the only receivable signal given the surrounding terrain (300~600 ft STEEP hills) ..... if it hadn't been for The info provided from that station on road closings/etc, I probably would not have made it out of there for quite some time, or to work on Monday Morning ....

Have you tried Knoxville or Bristol?


I've had no luck with them yet. I have a VIP-307SR waiting in the wings for WBIR and WCYB's return to 10 and 5, respectively.


I do hope you fellows are aware of the situation regarding FCC's recent action involving allowing, and adopting rules for so called "White space" devices in the TV bands. The WSD's will be allowed to operate co-channel just outside of stations predicted service areas. In other words, TV viewers outside the predicted service areas are not protected from interference from the WSD's.

More info(and links to the new rules adopted in FCC meeting, without public comment on them on Nov 4) can be found in the following thread :


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15073491#post15073491

First, I'd recommend YOU should have filed your comments with FCC if you wanted to support their petition,


I would think that the evidence is already in on VHF-lo and has been since before the first experimental DT went on the air. VHF-lo has since been proven to be unreliable in every real world case. I don't think the WDKY petition really needs any more support on that case ... even though you provided below. :)


Now, to contend that lo-VHF is not "suitable" for DTV because of various interference issues involved and because such interference often means "dropouts"/inability to see the picture at all with DTV, even in strong signal areas and with the use of receive antennas which meet FCC planning factors for DTV reception --- is saying something entirely different, and is saying something that most, Including myself, even though I must say I have not seen much evidence of it in my particular situation involving WEAK signal reception of WDKY-DT would (mostly in my case)agree with ...

And as far as the OP's original complaint, well that's why man invented a) KET's blanket coverage of the state, b) cable-TV and c) DBS LiL service.

It's laughable when WDRB-DT Ch49 at 75 miles out is often more reliable than WDKY-DT at 29 miles.

VHF-lo has since been proven to be unreliable in every real world case.


Care to back that statement up with a link to all the Field test data involved which definitively demonstrates that your statement is accurate ?


And as far as the OP's original complaint, well that's why man invented a) KET's blanket coverage of the state


How KET does things is impressive. Nevertheless, however, You are mistaken if you think KET's OTA signals reach into every household, in every holler in the state, or if you think there aren't folks who can receive Lo-VHF stations (such as say WSAZ 3 analog, or even WDKY-DT) but can't receive *any* UHF signals ...


It's laughable when WDRB-DT Ch49 at 75 miles out is often more reliable than WDKY-DT at 29 miles.


What I've allways found especially laughable is ... Ehh, never mind .....

update --- Oh :


I don't think the WDKY petition really needs any more support on that case ...


The reason for the submission of comments in such proceeding is because such comments are a part of what FCC uses to make their decision regarding the matter. Sometimes it's a big part of what they use. So far, WDKY and Mr. Dobson are the only two parties to submit comments, and IMO (and others it seems have the same or similar opinion), WDKY has done a poor job making their case .....

In any case, I think we should soon find out what FCC "thinks" ....

Care to back that statement up with a link to all the Field test data involved which definitely demonstrates that your statement is accurate ?

LOL ... how about thread after thread in the AVSForums "Local HDTV" section. :D ... Particularly Chicago's? Are man made hollar's are going to be worse than natural ones? Humm... ;)

As far as I'm concerned one of 3 things will happen

1) WDKY gets ch 31 and happy days are here. DVR scheduling becomes infinitely easier.
2) DirecTV finally lights up the LiL service for Lexington and happy days are here .
3) The nattering nabobs prevail and nothing changes ... I still have WDRB to fall back on. Which is nothing new since at least half of my viewing comes from Louisville a/o Campbellsville anyway. (All UHF by the way.) ;)

First of all, I'm not really making an "arguement". Analog is going away, and That's for the folks here who like to "bicker" about things, I do not. What is better in such situations, to be able to receive TV with an occasional "dropout" when a nearby lightning strike hits, or to have no TV reception possible at all ?

Do you think people living in Hollers in appalachia are going to somehow "go away" with analog TV, or suddenly receive cable service or UHF translators on every hill will be built ?

When I was in such a location at a friend's cabin during a major flood event in 1997, where do you think I and neigboors (who actually live there) went for information on what was going on?

Sounds like debate/argument to me. VHF-LO for digital really does nothing in the way of increasing coverage for anyone. If it's not consistent, it might as well be absent. No one will (or should) depend on a channel that is only watchable part of the time for important news and information (or even for HDTV for that matter).

So you spent a weekend in Appalachia in a friend's cabin during a flood? Good for you. ;) You probably ought to have a little more basis than that though to become a spokesman.

BTW it's a little strange hearing the "Appalachian advocate" type tone that you are directing towards me considering both of our geographic locations. I'm looking out my window as I type this at the Appalachians and my father was raised in a "holler" as you call it called Little Cane Creek.

I would think that the evidence is already in on VHF-lo and has been since before the first experimental DT went on the air. VHF-lo has since been proven to be unreliable in every real world case.

That is clearly not the case. For me, FOX OTA with the occasional dropout is better than none at all.

a)KET's blanket coverage of the state, b) cable-TV and c) DBS LiL service.

(A) KET does not reach me with a usable DTV signal. I'm in the null between Somerset and Hazard.

(B/C) Some of the poorest, most remote communities in the state are over here, the very type of places where free OTA TV is most depended on.

Hello, All. I just had Insight HD installed today after switch from Direct. All my HD has top and bottom bars and appears stretched. Cable guy said its a tv setting but I can only manipulate aspect off the air from the TV. Controlled those things from the Direct box. Does Insight deliver HD this way or are there cable box settings or do I need to dig deeper into my TV manual? Thank for any information.

LOL ... how about thread after thread in the AVSForums "Local HDTV" section. :D


You mean some of the posts here, on this very thread from folks actually using the sort of antennas they should be(and some that aren't), that say "I don't have any problems receiving WDKY?" ;) .. and NO, I'm not saying if you use the right "antenna" you won't necessarily have problems ....

Anyway, that's Often not a source of accurate or reliable information. Many times, folks don't even say what sort of antennas they are using, oftentimes when they do, it involves antennas(even indoor antennas no less) which do not come close to meeting FCC planning factors for DTV.

FCC "examined" the issue of lo-VHF DTV in 1998. Originally, they were going to use UHF only for DTV, but later added ch 7~13. Then later, certian broadcasters "convinced them" to add ch 2~6 into the core pretty much at the last minute as the DTV table of allotments was being developed, and that desision was partly based on (not entirely "complete" I'd say) field test data from a Test station on channel 6.


... Particularly Chicago's? Are man made hollar's are going to be worse natural ones?


Yes, because man-made noise issues are likely to be more of an issue involved. Multipath issues are also generally more of an issue when it involves metal and concrete vs. Trees and hills ....

Furthermore, The situation regarding WBBM's operation is also very different than WDKY's.

I have a question for you, kycubsfan, how is WDKY-DT during thunderstorms for you? Just my curiosity.

- Trip

Furthermore, The situation regarding WBBM's operation is also very different than WDKY's.

LOL ... didn't WBBM have it's very own, miles long thread at one point? ;)

I have a question for you, kycubsfan, how is WDKY-DT during thunderstorms for you? Just my curiosity.

- Trip

Indeed, this is my whole point ... when you "need" WDKY(Ch4) the most, you probably won't be able to receive them anyway.

(A) KET does not reach me with a usable DTV signal. I'm in the null between Somerset and Hazard.

What antenna setup have you tried for Hazard KET? I have no problem getting it from here.

(B/C) Some of the poorest, most remote communities in the state are over here, the very type of places where free OTA TV is most depended on.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like wining. Give me a break. You're concerned you won't get an HD signal for FOX if they switch to UHF.

"Poor Pitiful Pearl" comes to mind.

You should be eligible for D* distant networks BTW. Have you checked? Also, since you said you were "waiting for Knoxville and Bristol to switch to 10 and 5" I'm assuming you haven't tried much on the UHF side. Maybe you should put a little effort into it. It might just pay off.

Sounds like debate/argument to me.


If so, it's only because you are creating it. And yes, I will do so if I'm forced into it.


VHF-LO for digital really does nothing in the way of increasing coverage for anyone. If it's not consistent, it might as well be absent. No one will (or should) depend on a channel that is only watchable part of the time for important news and information (or even for HDTV for that matter).


And your basis for such detirmination is what, exactly? Posts on AVSforum? Your own personal experience with Lo-VHF DTV? If I used mine concerning the latter, I'd be a big advocate for it, and yet I'm not .... AGAIN, I *agree* that the interference issues involved make Lo-VHF much less suitable for DTV use than is the case for analog ... That's not to say that "nonone" is achieving acceptable reception of Lo-VHF DTV ...


So you spent a weekend in Appalachia in a friend's cabin during a flood? Good for you. ;) You probably ought to have a little more basis than that though to become a spokesman.

BTW it's a little strange hearing the "Appalachian advocate" type tone that you are directing towards me considering both of our geographic locations. I'm looking out my window as I type this at the Appalachians and my father was raised in a "holler" as you call it called Little Cane Creek.

Keep trying with the insults and assumptions, and attempts to pin a label on me which I did not provoke .... It's rather humorous and I'm getting a rather good laugh out of it .... Next, you'll probably be calling me a "liberal democrat" when, the truth is, I'm a conservative republican .....

.... I use the word "appalachia" (because that is what the region is reffered to), and regardless of how much time I've spent there, or family I have there, or my family's roots there(which by the way reaches back into the 18th century) somehow I'm trying to be an "advocate", and using "tones" and attempting to be a "spokesman" and so on and so forth .... LOL ....

Somehow, I'd be willing to guess your dad knows better than that, though .....

And yeah, we do call them "hollers", and that's how it is spelled on maps I have seen, although yeah, I have seen the hollar spelling as well .....

The point is, lo-VHF signals get over hills better than UHF, that's as true for lo-VHF DTV as it is for analog, and is as true in "appalachia" as it is in Say, Nevada or Utah .... Calling me names and making assumptions otherwise isn't going to change that ...

I have a question for you, kycubsfan, how is WDKY-DT during thunderstorms for you? Just my curiosity.

- Trip

I have seen it "wink out" when lightning is in the vicinity. WYMT on 12 has behaved similarly, but I wouldn't call either signal unusable.

Wind-aggravated multipath is my biggest enemy in a storm.

If so, it's only because you are creating it. And yes, I will do so if I'm forced into it.



And your basis for such detirmination is what, exactly? Posts on AVSforum? Your own personal experience with Lo-VHF DTV? If I used mine concerning the latter, I'd be a big advocate for it, and yet I'm not .... AGAIN, I *agree* that the interference issues involved make Lo-VHF much less suitable for DTV use than is the case for analog ... That's not to say that "nonone" is achieving acceptable reception of Lo-VHF DTV ...



Keep trying with the insults and assumptions, and attempts to pin a label on me which I did not provoke .... It's rather humorous and I'm getting a rather good laugh out of it .... Next, you'll probably be calling me a "liberal democrat" when, the truth is, I'm a conservative republican .....

.... I use the word "appalachia" (because that is what the region is reffered to), and regardless of how much time I've spent there, or family I have there, or my family's roots there(which by the way reaches back into the 18th century) somehow I'm trying to be an "advocate", and using "tones" and attempting to be a "spokesman" and so on and so forth .... LOL ....

Somehow, I'd be willing to guess your dad knows better than that, though .....

And yeah, we do call them "hollers", and that's how it is spelled on maps I have seen, although yeah, I have seen the hollar spelling as well .....

The point is, lo-VHF signals get over hills better than UHF, that's as true for lo-VHF DTV as it is for analog, and is as true in "appalachia" as it is in Say, Nevada or Utah .... Calling me names and making assumptions otherwise isn't going to change that ...

So let's see. You are defending a VHF Lo designation for a station on a local thread that's out of your market and part of the defense is preserving signals to "hollers" that you don't even live in.....and this is because you have descendants from this area from 3 centuries ago and you recently stayed in a cabin in a holler for a weekend with a friend.

Keep it up. This is fun. :):)

What antenna setup have you tried for Hazard KET? I have no problem getting it from here.

My current rig is a decently-sized CM combo.

Manchester lies at 850 feet ASL, Corbin is at 1,150. That, and the steep ridges that surround my location are the likely difference.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like wining. Give me a break. You're concerned you won't get an HD signal for FOX if they switch to UHF.

"Poor Pitiful Pearl" comes to mind.

I don't see it as whining, I'm just stating the facts. You won't see me whine when the FCC decision comes either - win or lose, life goes on.

You should be eligible for D* distant networks BTW. Have you checked?

I've had HD-DNS for years. It's fine for stuff like "Prison Break," but I watch a lot of sports and it gets old being stuck with the New York teams all the time.

I also like the "virgin" quality of the OTA feeds. People say I'm crazy, but I can see the difference.

Also, since you said you were "waiting for Knoxville and Bristol to switch to 10 and 5" I'm assuming you haven't tried much on the UHF side. Maybe you should put a little effort into it. It might just pay off.

I may stack a decent UHF rig on top of the 307SR when the time comes.

kycubsfan,

Which analog signals do you receive? I did a general plot for Manchester and it shows 13 stations, with all of them in the gray (negative noise-margin). I would be curious to see which are viewable vs. the TV Fool plot.

I am surprised by the lack of translators in the area. What do most people locally do for TV, satellite? If so, what was it like before then?

Thanks,

I have seen it "wink out" when lightning is in the vicinity. WYMT on 12 has behaved similarly, but I wouldn't call either signal unusable.

Wind-aggravated multipath is my biggest enemy in a storm.

I suspect that's the sort of VHF DTV (including lo-VHF) reception results most folks would experience given the use of an appropriate receive antenna setup.

All sorts of reasons why *some* get something worse than that, even with the use of appropriate receive antenna setups. And all sorts of reasons why that's what you hear about more than the cases when it does work fine. Man-made interference, and use of indoor or inadequate receive antennas for the job being the primary reasons (which should not be there and often can be addressed in some fashion, but sometimes not)involved I think, and why many who come to AVSforum and "whine and complain" about how "bad" lo-VHF is .....

*ARE* those valid reason for FCC to grant WDKY's petition to move to UHF ? I suppose it depends on how you look at it, I think it could be, but again, IMO, WDKY hasn't done a very good job making their case to the FCC that it is. And of course, had they tried to get off lo-VHF during channel election, including in 3rd round(well after other stations in area had made their choices) they could have done it without possible opposition from the public ....

The bad part is, if FCC doesn't grant it, there are probably going to be folks that would not like that blaming YOU that they didn't. And of course there wasn't a thing wrong or "whiney" about your particpation in filing comments with FCC on the issue. In fact, I was very impressed with your well thought out comments vs. some of the few comments you'll see submitted(often in the form of forum letters, or mispelled single liners such as "DTV is stoodpid) by members of the general public via ECFS, and as mentioned before, some of what WDKY submitted on the issue ....

I had a feeling it might unfortunetly turn out like it has, which was why I was hesitant to mention it at first ... But, OTOH, I figured when/if it did come out here, you might be attacked this way and that and every which way about it, and I know the feeling, it's not a good one, but it's better that there are two of us rather than one ....

At this point though, unlike has been the case, I'm going back to my "usual" M.o. for posting on this forum, and back to ignoring the comments which don't deserve a response .....

My current rig is a decently-sized CM combo.

Manchester lies at 850 feet ASL, Corbin is at 1,150. That, and the steep ridges that surround my location are the likely difference.

I've had HD-DNS for years. It's fine for stuff like "Prison Break," but I watch a lot of sports and it gets old being stuck with the New York teams all the time.

I also like the "virgin" quality of the OTA feeds. People say I'm crazy, but I can see the difference.

I may stack a decent UHF rig on top of the 307SR when the time comes.

Obviously your local terrain will have a major impact.

A stack would be a good start.

A quad might even be better.

FYI with Winegard's largest uhf/vhf combo I get basically nothing from my location.

You are defending a VHF Lo designation for a station ...


No. One more time. I'm not going to respond to your other comments, for reasons mentioned in my last post.

I support their petition to move to 31. I've already stated why I think it's a good idea. However, I don't support or agree with most of the comments WDKY has submitted in the proceeding, and I don't think they've made a good case for why it should be granted.

But, I also agree with much(not all) of kycubfan's comments he submitted to FCC, and I will say what I think is right about it, regardless of what "market" I am in. Because he *is* correct about a number of things, and for this forum to work at it's best, readers need accurate information about such issues. And because he does not deserve to be dragged through the mud here or called names for saying what he thinks is right, and neither do I, but no I'm not going to "whine and complain" about it, but yes, I *will* fight when provoked .......

I also did not/do not think it appropriate for myself to file comments with FCC regarding this matter, since WDKY-DT is not a "local station" for me/because I'm not within their service area.

Update : Changed my mind since you're having so much "fun" ....


and this is because you have descendants from this area from 3 centuries ago ...


No. See above.


and you recently stayed in a cabin in a holler for a weekend with a friend.


No. I spent many months there over many years, Including weeks at a time sometimes with friends, sometimes not+with neighbors as company and as friends.

I have lived in one(without TV or electricity or indoor plumbing for that matter, and if you must know my family did not have indoor plumbing until I was 6), have slept on the ground and everywhere else in the hills camping and hiking 100's of miles in that region, and I "sorta" live in one now, but it's really more of a "ditch" than a holler ....

Still having fun?

kycubsfan,

Which analog signals do you receive? I did a general plot for Manchester and it shows 13 stations, with all of them in the gray (negative noise-margin). I would be curious to see which are viewable vs. the TV Fool plot.

I have reliably marginal reception — that's being generous — of the following analog signals:

WETP-2 Sneedville (PBS)
WBXX-20 Crossville (CW)
WKSO-29 Somerset (PBS)
WKHA-35 Hazard (PBS)
WAGV-44 Harlan (IND)
WPKX-54 Jellico (ION)
WYMT-57 Hazard (CBS)

I am surprised by the lack of translators in the area. What do most people locally do for TV, satellite? If so, what was it like before then?

This is definitely a cable enclave, though satellite has decent penetration.

Before pay TV was widely available, this was a Knoxville town. Local antenna installers did a brisk business mounting cut-antennas for 6 and 10 (WATE and WBIR) on hilltops across the county.

I live on a family plot that had such a setup back in the day. Unfortunately, a major highway now separates me from the hilltop, so I can't run a line up there. I honestly think I could catch Cincinnati if I could only get up there.

When I go after Knoxville and Bristol, it'll be from a decent tower.

Nitewatchman,

I wish you would've quoted my entire previous reply for your response. You have to admit it was pretty funny.:D

cpcat, see my update, I decided to include it ....

Obviously your local terrain will have a major impact.

A stack would be a good start.

A quad might even be better.

FYI with Winegard's largest uhf/vhf combo I get basically nothing from my location.

I have many of your antenna setups saved to my HD. Awesome stuff.

Unfortunately, a major highway now separates me from the hilltop, so I can't run a line up there. I honestly think I could catch Cincinnati if I could only get up there.


I mounted a fencepost on a ridge and stuck a medium sized VHF/UHF combo at the friend's cabin Near Portsmouth .... It was how we watched a bit of NCAA tourney a couple of years .... We had built a small shelter on the ridge at a nice spot ....

Had to carry a battery powered TV up there, but the reception was VERY nice, even UHF, pretty much everything within 90 miles , Huntington/Chareleston, cincinnati+Dayton mostly (Ashland as well) ... (350 feet higher than the "cabin", only 1/4 mile walk - WLWT 5/WSAZ 3 were the only receivable stations at the cabin, using medium sized outdoor antenna) .... I tried some experiments with a hi-Gain UHF yagi from down there, but not even the full power portsmouth stations were receivable ...

Update : Changed my mind since you're having so much "fun" ....

No. I spent many months there over many years, Including weeks at a time sometimes with friends, sometimes not+with neighbors as company and as friends.

I have lived in one(without TV or electricity or indoor plumbing for that matter, and if you must know my family did not have indoor plumbing until I was 6), have slept on the ground and everywhere else in the hills camping and hiking 100's of miles in that region, and I "sorta" live in one now, but it's really more of a "ditch" than a holler ....

Still having fun?

OK Nitewatchman you win.

That's good, as my next step was to attempt to dig up some old pics(probably from 8mm home movies transferred to video) of me getting a bath in a small galvanized metal tub(outdoors) or pics of our outhouse ... Sisters and mom allways hated it when Dad would film them going/to coming back from the outhouse, such that some of the film is indeed, rather humorous ;)

DN does have the Superstations package with CW. I wonder if DN is going to give those superstations HD treatment. If that's the case, then CW in HD will be available over satellite.
WGN is the only one in Dish Network's "superstation pkg" that is HD.

kycubsfan:

Sorry to have brought it up, I didn't mean for attacks to be launched against you or anything, was just trying to get a conversation of some kind going about it. As someone also dealing with a low-VHF station, I was surprised to see such a comment in support of low-VHF digital.

It would be nice if the Lexington stations would get together and perhaps launch a VHF digital in southeastern Kentucky and multicast SD feeds of the various stations for people like you. CBS not included, obviously, due to WYMT, and PBS probably not either since KET makes at least some effort to cover the whole state. It'd be a nice way to reuse the WDKY-DT 04 equipment.

- Trip

kycubsfan:

Sorry to have brought it up, I didn't mean for attacks to be launched against you or anything, was just trying to get a conversation of some kind going about it. As someone also dealing with a low-VHF station, I was surprised to see such a comment in support of low-VHF digital.

It would be nice if the Lexington stations would get together and perhaps launch a VHF digital in southeastern Kentucky and multicast SD feeds of the various stations for people like you. CBS not included, obviously, due to WYMT, and PBS probably not either since KET makes at least some effort to cover the whole state. It'd be a nice way to reuse the WDKY-DT 04 equipment.

- Trip

No problem, I'm happy to discuss my views here.

There was talk a couple of years ago that WDKY would put 4 to translator duty in Harlan, but I don't see Sinclair springing for something like that.

Seems to me perhaps Jellico might be a good spot for a high powered VHF-LO transmitter ... Harlan/near WYMT or farther east or North sounds good as well ...

Lexington? It seems to me Not so much, as much of the market is relatively flat and not in the "hills", and I believe analog UHF has worked pretty well for the most part over the years ...

kycubsfan:

What kind of Internet connection are you on? I've generated a coverage map for a channel 4 in Hazard, assuming it replaces the top-mounted WYMT-57 analog antenna, at 26.5 kW but not directional (even though using WDKY-DT's antenna would be directional) mostly because I don't know how to use directional patterns in this software.

However, the map is 6.3MB in size, which on a dialup connection would not be fun.

- Trip

Trip,

FWIW, I'd probably like to give it a look when I get a chance, 6.3Mb would only take around 23~25 Minutes or so on my 5~6KB/sec dialup connection ... Sure would be nice if the DA/relative field values from FCC site could be implemented however ....

And, I just realized something .. I did not mean to suggest in an earlier post there was anything "wrong" with you bringing it up, but I understand how it might have been taken that way, sorry that isn't what I meant ... Indeed, I think it's an excellent topic for discussion/converation here ...

To put it another way than I did earlier, It's just that I know that some don't realize how much "grey area" is involved with such issues, it's not as black and white as some seem to think ....

WGN is the only one in Dish Network's "superstation pkg" that is HD.

That's typical.

CWKYT is now back to 720X480i. Bleh.. hope the sports freaks are happy with CBS-HD now. Don't get me wrong.. I like sports, but if you want to see a game, go in person. It's a higher definition experience than any TV could offer. ;)

I was picking up WBKI really nice late last night, but I think the light snow on the ground and clear skies were helping to bring the signal out to me.

The big problem with it is that it wants each degree measure on the pattern to have a value, and I just don't have that information (FCC only notes every ten degrees). It's also very time-intensive and I don't want to spend the time on it. I figure that the WDKY pattern would be oriented on the WYMT tower such that the two main lobes would point west and north.

I'm trying to learn how this program works, and just reran it to give what I think is a better idea of what the coverage is like, but it increased the size of the map from 6.3 MB to 9MB.

I just ran it again and couldn't get a directional pattern to work.

- Trip

http://kj4iea.rabbitears.info/tv/SEKY-4a.png

I've about given up on this directional pattern.

That map is 9MB, so it'll take a while on dialup.

- Trip

CWKYT is now back to 720X480i. Bleh.. hope the sports freaks are happy with CBS-HD now.

Yep and once you hit the "stretch" button on your STB, it looks just as good as it did at 720p ... maybe even better. ;)

No problem, I'm happy to discuss my views here.

I apologize for my earlier cantankerousness ... I just that, historically speaking, getting Sinclair to get off their butts and bring us digital and then HiDef has been like trying to pull a "canine" tooth out of a large, fully grown, non-sedated, wild African lion. If FOX hadn't come to the rescue, I'm sure we would have still been watching 480i well into the next decade.

Now that they are finally showing signs that they "get it," it's extremely frustrating when I hear of a third party that's trying (for whatever reasons) to derail the process. It's beyond frustrating ... it's down right maddening. ;)

The big problem with it is that it wants each degree measure on the pattern to have a value, and I just don't have that information (FCC only notes every ten degrees). It's also very time-intensive and I don't want to spend the time on it. I figure that the WDKY pattern would be oriented on the WYMT tower such that the two main lobes would point west and north.

I use a spreadsheet which interpolates the FCC data for use by Radio Mobile. Just enter in the FCC values and copy and paste the degree by degree column onto notepad, etc. I don't know if this would work for your program, but I have attached it anyway, along with WDKY's pattern for 4 (rotated for 0 degree normalization).

The only drawback is that when certain stations specify additional azimuths, such as a few degrees for WDKY, there's no way to enter that (easily).

There was talk a couple of years ago that WDKY would put 4 to translator duty in Harlan, but I don't see Sinclair springing for something like that.

As an analog or digital translator? I don't see 0.3kW being very effective for digital.

I imagine he means full-powered satellite, like WYMT sort of is to WKYT.

Almost forgot to mention, I'll try your files in the morning. Further, I'm rather annoyed. For some reason SPLAT is chopping off the eastern section of my coverage plot for Roanoke. I was going to use WBRA-DT 3 to figure out directional patterns, but since it won't show me my area (the coverage of which I'm most familiar with) I guess I can't use it.

- Trip

I've had HD-DNS for years. It's fine for stuff like "Prison Break," but I watch a lot of sports and it gets old being stuck with the New York teams all the time.

Ok ... I rescind my apology ... we've gone from "woe is me, unserved" status to "over-served and attempting to deny better, more reliable coverage for the vast majority of the viewing area" status. ;)

Man, oh man ... that's really the way to win friends and influence people. ;) :D
For a minute there, I almost had some sympathy for your case.

http://kj4iea.rabbitears.info/tv/SEKY-4a.png

I've about given up on this directional pattern.

That map is 9MB, so it'll take a while on dialup.

- Trip

Cool.

I apologize for my earlier cantankerousness ... I just that, historically speaking, getting Sinclair to get off their butts and bring us digital and then HiDef has been like trying to pull a "canine" tooth out of a large, fully grown, non-sedated, wild African lion. If FOX hadn't come to the rescue, I'm sure we would have still been watching 480i well into the next decade.

Now that they are finally showing signs that they "get it," it's extremely frustrating when I hear of a third party that's trying (for whatever reasons) to derail the process. It's beyond frustrating ... it's down right maddening. ;)

No apology needed, this is an emotional issue for all involved.

I understand your position, but I'm not some interloping "third party" - I'm a viewer, a member of the public, who is merely exercising the right to comment as allowed by the FCC.

As an analog or digital translator? I don't see 0.3kW being very effective for digital.

As Trip said, it was imagined as a sister station to WDKY.

Ok ... I rescind my apology ... we've gone from "woe is me, unserved" status to "over-served and attempting to deny better, more reliable coverage for the vast majority of the viewing area" status. ;)

Man, oh man ... that's really the way to win friends and influence people. ;) :D
For a minute there, I almost had some sympathy for your case.

You can likely hit Louisville, Lexington and Cincinnati with a decent rooftop rig, and I'm "over-served?"

Ok ... I rescind my apology ... we've gone from "woe is me, unserved" status to "over-served and attempting to deny better, more reliable coverage for the vast majority of the viewing area" status. ;)

Man, oh man ... that's really the way to win friends and influence people. ;) :D
For a minute there, I almost had some sympathy for your case.

I get basically nothing from Lexington even with various antenna setups which I've posted pictures of here including quad Triax Unix 100 Band A's, Televes DAT 75's as well as horizontal stacking of antennacraft Y10 7-13's, Wade-Delhi cut channel 4 for attempts at stable reception of WKYT, WDKY. I've spent countless hours experimenting for the best and most consistent results. I can, however, get consistent reception from Knoxville, Hazard, Somerset, Beattyville, Campbellsville, Bristol, and even Asheville for the most part. I have reliable OTA reception of all HD networks including CW and even many duplicates.

I suppose I could cry and complain to the FCC as well. Never really occurred to me though. While I was at it if I were to request what was BEST FOR ME I'd probably rather all the other LEX channels went back to 18,27,36 and FOX went to 31. That would actually give extreme fringe receivers the best chance as they are closely grouped in low uhf and amenable to higher antenna performance setups.

I suppose I could cry and complain to the FCC as well.

I did not write to the FCC to "cry and complain." A window for public comment was opened, so I offered my position.

Cool.




You can likely hit Louisville, Lexington and Cincinnati with a decent rooftop rig, and I'm "over-served?"


You could most likely receive both Knoxville and Bristol with a little effort. Considering that many of the folks in your area have historically used WBIR and WATE as their "locals" I'm frankly surprised you've not explored this more already. WTNZ FOX DT-34 is an excellent station (not a Sinclair station). You'd probably have a decent shot at the Tri-Cities signals as well which includes WEMT DT-38 FOX from Greenville, TN. Increasing your uhf performance would also almost certainly allow you to pick up the KET in Hazard DT-16.

The nice thing about the Knoxville locals being on DT 17,26, 30, 31, and 34 is that they are all within the low uhf and are therefore receivable with a high perfromance band-specific antenna for low UHF (or "Band A" as it's referred to in Europe). This allows very high in-band perfromance with something like the Triax Unix 100A. Sure, it's a little more expensive but not that much more over something like an XG91. You'd likely do very well with a setup similar to mine directed towards uhf 14-38 at the top of the mast, and a hi vhf antenna like the Antennacraft Y10 7-13 below. This should allow reception of WBIR DT-10 after the transition as well as continued reception of WYMT DT 12. You could even add a low bander for WCYB DT-5 in Bristol. This would then give you an excellent shot at the Tri-Cities market post transition which are DT 5, 11, 27, 38, and even PBS DT-41 from Sneedville (which I get as one of my strongest signals even slightly out-of-band for the Unix 100A).

You can likely hit Louisville, Lexington and Cincinnati with a decent rooftop rig, and I'm "over-served?"

Yeah ... but the point is that I have no choice in the matter, I don't have those nice DNS waivers. :p If you have DNS waivers, then by definition, you're not really in the Lexington service area, and therefore, your case becomes much less compelling.

PS: BTW, What the heck local teams to you think might be on WDKY vs NY ... maybe one or two Bengal's games a year (or they in the CBS conference? ... I can't keep them all straight ;) )

You could most likely receive both Knoxville and Bristol with a little effort. Considering that many of the folks in your area have historically used WBIR and WATE as their "locals" I'm frankly surprised you've not explored this more already. WTNZ FOX DT-34 is an excellent station (not a Sinclair station). You'd probably have a decent shot at the Tri-Cities signals as well which includes WEMT DT-38 FOX from Greenville, TN. Increasing your uhf performance would also almost certainly allow you to pick up the KET in Hazard DT-16.

The nice thing about the Knoxville locals being on DT 17,26, 30, 31, and 34 is that they are all within the low uhf and are therefore receivable with a high perfromance band-specific antenna for low UHF (or "Band A" as it's referred to in Europe). This allows very high in-band perfromance with something like the Triax Unix 100A. Sure, it's a little more expensive but not that much more over something like an XG91. You'd likely do very well with a setup similar to mine directed towards uhf 14-38 at the top of the mast, and a hi vhf antenna like the Antennacraft Y10 7-13 below. This should allow reception of WBIR DT-10 after the transition as well as continued reception of WYMT DT 12. You could even add a low bander for WCYB DT-5 in Bristol. This would then give you an excellent shot at the Tri-Cities market post transition which are DT 5, 11, 27, 38, and even PBS DT-41 from Sneedville (which I get as one of my strongest signals even slightly out-of-band for the Unix 100A).

My dream scenario would be to get into two, maybe three DMAs (Lex, Knox and Bristol.) I do plan to make an attempt, but I'm not very optimistic given that TVFool's coverage maps show negative noise-margin for everything that's not on VHF.

Yeah ... but the point is that I have no choice in the matter, I don't have those nice DNS waivers. :p If you have DNS waivers, then by definition, you're not really in the Lexington service area, and therefore, your case becomes much less compelling.

PS: BTW, What the heck local teams to you think might be on WDKY vs NY ... maybe one or two Bengal's games a year (or they in the CBS conference? ... I can't keep them all straight ;) )

Just know that I would love to trade places.

The point of a local FOX isn't so much for football, it's for baseball. New York almost never shows the NL Central matchups, but WDKY almost always goes with the Cubs when they have a Saturday afternoon game.

On the football side, WDKY will go with the best matchups, while WPIX shows the New Yorkers regardless.

I would actually be very curious to see your post-transition TVFool plot.

- Trip

Just know that I would love to trade places.


Well, move then ... or just wait a few months until DirecTV gets around to lighting up the HD-LiL service ... it can't be that far off, Lexington is at the top of the (as-yet-unserved) list. :)

My dream scenario would be to get into two, maybe three DMAs (Lex, Knox and Bristol.) I do plan to make an attempt, but I'm not very optimistic given that TVFool's coverage maps show negative noise-margin for everything that's not on VHF.





Your TVfool plot looks very similar to mine, although I was only able to input a generic Manchester address for yours. Mine pre/post are below. I'd go out on a limb and predict that with 1000kw omni DT 31 from Clay's Ferry you'd have an equal or even better chance with WDKY assuming you've optimized your antenna for low uhf.

I have attached radar plots for the current 30 ft. height, as well as for my planned 100 ft. tower. I appreciate your collective insight into my situation.

Your actual plot looks worse than that for a generic Manchester address.:(

There is hope but certainly no guarantees and it will require trial/error and potentially enduring much frustration.

I'd still say go with the separate uhf/hi vhf/lo vhf route for the best chance at success. Combo antennas will almost never perform at the level of separates. Having a high performance uhf-plus hi band vhf rotating above a fixed low band antenna below with a CM 7777 preamp would be a start.

Assuming post-transition, the decision to make IMO is whether to use a wide band uhf (i.e. xg91) to max the chance at the higher uhf Lex stations (39,40) vs. going with the Triax Unix 100A for better low uhf performance (17,26,30,34 from Kville, 31 from Lex, 16 from Hazard and 27,38 from Bristol). The cutoff is roughly channel 38 for equivalent performance and the 100A drops off considerably above that. The xg91 likely will be a little better for 39,40 than the 100A. The 100A will be significantly better below 38.

Your actual plot looks worse than that for a generic Manchester address.:(

There is hope but certainly no guarantees and it will require trial/error and potentially enduring much frustration.

I'd still say go with the separate uhf/hi vhf/lo vhf route for the best chance at success. Combo antennas will almost never perform at the level of separates. Having a high performance uhf-plus hi band vhf rotating above a fixed low band antenna below with a CM 7777 preamp would be a start.

Assuming post-transition, the decision to make IMO is whether to use a wide band uhf (i.e. xg91) to max the chance at the higher uhf Lex stations (39,40) vs. going with the Triax Unix 100A for better low uhf performance (17,26,30,34 from Kville, 31 from Lex, 16 from Hazard and 27,38 from Bristol). The cutoff is roughly channel 38 for equivalent performance and the 100A drops off considerably above that. The xg91 likely will be a little better for 39,40 than the 100A. The 100A will be significantly better below 38.

I'm thinking I should ignore Lexington, save WDKY (4 or 31) since I can't even get at least a 2edge look at those signals.

Looks like 100A is the way to go.

If anyone cares, I did a bit of A/B on WLKY HD vs. WKYT HD during the Steelers v. Ravens game yesterday. On my calibrated-to-within-an-inch-of-it's-life 1080i CRT RPTV, WLKY-DT was still clearly the winner ... although I'm willing to stipulate that *some* of the loss in PQ from WKYT may come from the re-upconvertion to 1080i by my DVR.

The difference was clearly visible during both Survivor segments as well. WLKY missed the HD switch for "60-Minutes" and the first part of Survivor, so I watched the the first 20 minutes of Survivor from WKYT. When I switched back to WLKY, it was like somebody had cleaned the screen with a Windex or Windex like product.

Like I said earlier ... it's a no-win situation for WKYT ....

PS: Why do I see a sudden increase in the "population" of Manchester, KY in the near future ... perhaps a boom in "vacation cabins?" ... humm ... ;) :D

Like I said earlier ... it's a no-win situation for WKYT ....


Hope alot of people still complain. If it is no better, may as well bring back CW in HD. :D

I wonder if WKYT still has to do some work on their end to up the bitrate allotted to the HD feed. Then again my fear is that HDTVChallenged is right and the PQ issues are stemming from the fact that they are converting the signal to 720p before sending it out.

Now the question is why would WKYT want to send a 720p signal if they clearly have enough bandwidth now to send the unaltered 1080i signal?

That's good, as my next step was to attempt to dig up some old pics(probably from 8mm home movies transferred to video) of me getting a bath in a small galvanized metal tub(outdoors) or pics of our outhouse ... Sisters and mom allways hated it when Dad would film them going/to coming back from the outhouse, such that some of the film is indeed, rather humorous

Of everything I read about the WDKY channel change, I found the above quote the most interesting.

I understand why WDKY submitted viewer e-mail to the FCC, pretty much everything that comes into a television station is considered public information and record is kept in the public file, but it would be nice if the FCC removed things like phone numbers and addresses from the comments before they post it on the internet. What do I know anyway.

I live well inside the WDKY channel 4 broadcast (about 4500' from the WDKY tower) can anyone tell me how to get reliable signal when my dishwasher is running? How about when my farmer neighbor uses his electric fence? Why do I need to use channel 3 on my DTV converter box again? Hummm. I'm using a folded dipole 83" isn't that a proper antenna where I live? People expect HDTV to be perfect, channel 4 isn't no matter how much you try. The heck of it is, when I try to DVR something and there is a cliff effect glitch, often I loose everything after the glitch. Let's all hope for a UHF channel, maybe Sinclair will move the old transmitter to Harlan. It wouldn't really cost them that much. Most of the expense would be medical notifications and FCC fees to buy the spectrum! Lunch time I'll be back

I wonder if WKYT still has to do some work on their end to up the bitrate allotted to the HD feed.


That thought crossed my mind as well.


Now the question is why would WKYT want to send a 720p signal if they clearly have enough bandwidth now to send the unaltered 1080i signal?

There's still not enough to do a 1080i sub-channel justice. We determined that, with in the first 2-3 months after WKYT started passing HD.

We may not see much improvement on 27.1, but perhaps 27.2 will no longer be a jumble of colored blocks. On the bright side, at least whatever bug or configuration issue that caused my DVR to barf on 27.2 is gone.

Looks like they forgot to switch their encoder back to 4:3 for 27-2. Everything is squished and they have their CWkyt bars up still.

Looks like they forgot to switch their encoder back to 4:3 for 27-2. Everything is squished and they have their CWkyt bars up still.

This is actually good thing ... just switch your STB/TV to stretch/full mode like you would for an anamorphic DVD.

This allows 16x9 HD originated programming to remain full screen 16x9 instead of letterboxed (or worse, postage stamped) in a 4:3 window. :)

I'm back, we had a lunch gathering here at work. I'm stuffed full of pumpkin pie and cool whip.

kycubfan is correct that he has a right as a citizen to comment to the FCC about the WDKY application to move to channel 31. I for one would hate to be the lone voice that argues for a decision that will harm many of the commonwealth's citizens negatively, and it takes real guts to be the lone voice of dissent. kycubsfan's argument may be found lacking by the commish, and many many of us are hopeful that it is, but thanks for taking an interest! Many people are happy to sit back and let things happen to them. kycubsfan isn't one of those people. Good for him!

I have been fighting behind the scenes for a WDKY-DT move to UHF for several years. I will take all the credit thank you for pulling the channel 46 application in order to replace it with channel 31 at a full 1 MW omni directional pattern. This change all by itself must have cost WDKY about $18,000 in lost consulting fees for the channel 46 app. (like I've said here before, I'm just a close source to WDKY but I do not represent WDKY or Sinclair in this forum, maybe that figure is a really good guess -end of disclaimer) The channel 31 request also requires replacement of the directional panel antenna that is currently used by analog 56. The channel 46 app was to use this same antenna. Changing out a 65 foot tall antenna on top of a nearly 1100' tower isn't cheap folks. This is truly a "spare no expense" effort.

Sinclair isn't out to "get us" and I get tired of hearing that they are. They will end up spending about at least 1/2 a million dollars to make this change before it's all said and done. If it's denied, they will save 1/2 a million dollars in capital, and they will have a $1000 a month electric bill in place of a $12,000 a month transmitter electric bill just by staying on channel 4. In my book that's a real monetary commitment to the citizens of Kentucky.

Sinclair operates a business not a charity and they are accountable to their stockholders. I get that. They are also attempting to provide Lexington - Danville the best Fox station possible within their means, I get that too.

I do not know how the FCC will rule on the channel 31 application, but I know that WDKY and the Sinclair engineering staff will do the best they can to deliver a reliable HD signal to as many viewers as possible. WDKY was not the last station in Lexington to air network HD, in fact they carried the first HD Superbowl in Lexington. This was no small feat at the time, WDKY had to relocate the DTV transmitter and install and align STL antennas and get the stupid splicer to cooperate and make everything work in a building without air conditioning (oh I know, open the doors, use a fan. The Superbowl is in February after all) They aired the Superbowl in HD at full power while construction on the transmitter building and tower wasn't even complete. Not because they had to, not because they were raking in the overtime working all night (all WDKY engineers are salaried) They did this so you could watch the Superbowl in HD. WDKY didn't make a penny of the HD broadcast in 2005.

I best get off my horse and get back to work :) I'm glad to see this forum back to it's old and busy self. It has been quiet for too long!

edit:

"application" isn't correct, they are petitions. Also "harm negatively" is that a double negative?

Like I said, I predict that channel 31 1kw omni from Clay's Ferry would have as good or better chance at giving kycubsfan a stable signal vs. the way it is now. The other thing about uhf/hi vhf is better ability to build a high performance antenna vs. low band. For channel 4, a 10 element cut channel is about as high performance as it gets for an amateur. For 31, the narrower bandwidth of either a dual or quad can really cut the mustard for long distance and for multipath. Sure, most won't go to that length (and hopefully won't have to), but it IS possible and you don't really have to be all that "handy" to do it. OTOH, just try horizontally stacking for channel 4. Go ahead, try.:)

OTOH, just try horizontally stacking for channel 4. Go ahead, try.

I have a couple dozen channel 4 yagis (yes I'm the guy that bought them all) I think 16 stacked & on a rotor would look cool! It would look like a SETI project, but I don't think channel 4 is anywhere the water hole :)

I'll be happy when I can get rid of this huge antenna and replace it with the antennas direct db4... It'll be a lot easier to disguise, and who knows maybe the guys at best buy in hamburg will finally learn how to pick up fox.

Of everything I read about the WDKY channel change, I found the above quote the most interesting.


Let's hope the FCC operates at a higher level of professionalism than some in the broadcast industry seem to, and also lets hope they look into the issue with a little more interest ...


I understand why WDKY submitted viewer e-mail to the FCC, pretty much everything that comes into a television station is considered public information and record is kept in the public file ...


Reports of successful reception should also be included in the public file ....

The reason I commented on this does not involve the "personal information" part of it. I'm certianly well aware anything I send to a TV station ends up in the stations' public file, which is required to be available at the station for anyone who wants to to inspect it ... However, I suspect it very well may be the case some, if not many of those who submitted the reception reports attached to WDKY and WSYX's recent filings regarding their Channel change petitions were not aware of this ....

The reason I commented on it is because when I've sent signal reports to station personel(usually engineering), and on (not all) occasions it's usually been of a "private" nature, and was intended solely for their use and benefit ... For reasons such as to help them gain an understanding of how well their signal is getting out/how well the facility is working, not for some lawyer somewhere to use it to help them "make their case" to the FCC ....

While I'm sure some would be happy to allow such use of their comments, others may not. I certianly would not have in this case, however, that is not saying I would not in "any" case .....


but it would be nice if the FCC removed things like phone numbers and addresses from the comments before they post it on the internet.


Sinclair(WDKY) submitted the comments and the reception reports in a public proceeding. Obviously they knew this before sending the comments to FCC. That one place that record is available to the public is on the internet is beside the point.

WDKY was not the last station in Lexington to air network HD, in fact they carried the first HD Superbowl in Lexington. This was no small feat at the time, WDKY had to relocate the DTV transmitter and install and align STL antennas and get the stupid splicer to cooperate and make everything work in a building without air conditioning (oh I know, open the doors, use a fan. The Superbowl is in February after all) They aired the Superbowl in HD at full power while construction on the transmitter building and tower wasn't even complete.

Point of order: Firstly, as one of the 5-10 people that actually watched watched that first Superbowl ... thanks. Although I don't recall if it was actually the first one I saw in HD or not. I think ABC or CBS might have squeaked one in before then.

In any case, That still doesn't excuse the years upon years of engineering/tower planning that always seemed to somehow fall through at the last minute. :)

Nor it excuse the months of "dead air" broadcast from the original low power tower site (post splicer upgrade.) .... I assume this was due to either a bad PSIP configuration and or the canibilizing of parts to keep the Columbus station on the air after a severe weather outbreak. Either way, repeated attempts to get someone, anyone from Sinclair or the station to respond to the situation went unanswered. And then there was Sinclair's well documented attempts to delay the digital transition by revisiting the 8VSB vs COEDFM modulation "war."

It's all water under the bridge now ... I just wanted to point out that there is a history here ... And it's not always clear exactly what Sinclair is up to. That being said, I do think they are finally on the right page ... hence my frustration vented in earlier posts.

Let's hope the FCC operates at a higher level of professionalism than some in the broadcast industry seem to, and also lets hope they look into the issue with a little more interest ...

.

I don't recall directly insulting you before, yet you claimed I did and called me on it. If you truly felt I did, I apologize.

Now, it seems you are insulting another. You are aware that HDTV4 is affiliated with WDKY right?

I for one would hate to be the lone voice that argues for a decision that will harm many of the commonwealth's citizens negatively ....


Sounds like gibberish-* to me ..... Obviously, regarding his comments he submitted to FCC and from his point of view(and mine, BTW) he is not arguing for such a occurance, therefore neither would you(or "I") be if it were the case you(or "I") shared his opinion on the matter ....

* - Nothing personal, and maybe you meant to say something different but I can only read and comment on what you typed ....

And, Interesting way to put it considering kycubsfan has DNS service but uses WDKY-DT OTA, and wants to continue receiving them and, apparently wants to support local stations and OTA broadcasting by actually USING OTA. And per his comments filed with FCC has concerns (as do I) not only about his own situation, but also other OTA users "between the hills" where UHF reception is often difficult, and sometimes impossible in cases when useable VHF, and VHF-LO reception particularly is sometimes achievable ....


Sinclair isn't out to "get us" and I get tired of hearing that they are.


No, of course not. I'm sure they're doing what they think is in their best interest as it involves running their business.

Thing is though, the spectrum the broadcasters *currently* have the privilage to operate on is for the use of ALL of us. Including folks who can acheive lo-VHF reception, but not UHF from "between the hills". It's not just there so WDKY can make $$$, and it's not just there for the "city folk", nor is it just for the folks who won't put up a proper antenna for VHF-LO reception, nor is it just for the folks who will. And it is not just to enable broadcasters to serve viewers via cable/sat carriage of the signal ....



Like I said, I predict that channel 31 1kw omni from Clay's Ferry would have as good or better chance at giving kycubsfan a stable signal vs. the way it is now.


I hope so, should FCC grant the channel change --- But, I'm curious, What is your prediction based on other than that there are UHF antennas(or arrays of them) which can offer better performance on UHF than his current antenna setup ?

Is there something about his WDKY analog or WKLE analog or Digital UHF reception which "encourages you" that he'll be able to get a usuable signal from the proposed WDKY-DT ch 31 1MW Non-DA facility regarding the higher power level involved and possibly a few~several more dB gain from a "better receive antenna ?

Given his reported reception results using receive antenna installation which probably at least comes somewhat close to meeting FCC planning factors for VHF and UHF reception, and given the TVFool plots he posted ---- unless there is some other evidence I'm not aware of, I'm also curious, in general to know how it is even possible to make such a prediction for any specific receive location, especially one apparently involving severe attenuation of UHF signals by nearby terrain .....

Now, it seems you are insulting another.


Nope. I don't "do" personal attacks or insults ....

I wasn't directing that comment at anyone "personally", it was just an unfortunate observation I've come to believe is true ...


You are aware that HDTV4 is affiliated with WDKY right?

I don't see how it is relevant, but to answer your question, I am aware he solicited reception reports at one point for them some time ago on this thread, and I'm aware in his last post on the last page he said he did not represent Sinclair or WDKY on this forum ....

Update:


yet you claimed I did and called me on it. If you truly felt I did, I apologize.


I made no such claim. I never thought/felt that you "insulted me". I mentioned a situation I was in on one occasion where I relied on lo-VHF TV signals(the only receivable ones) for emergency and news information on one particular occasion, and you made certian assumptions about it and apparently read more "into it" than what I said or meant, and THAT is what I called you on -- Somehow, among other things that led to discussion of my personal life and upbringing and how I somehow "deserved" or did not to talk about such things, although really little to none of that was of any consequence or interest IMO regarding the topics I was addressing ... In any case, I had hoped my last post on that matter would be taken in the good humour I meant it .......

Anyway, I believe part of what occured was because you also misunderstood the context of the word "appalachia" as I used it. I admit that was probably my mistake given I know and understand some folks senstivity to it, although I really only meant it to describe a geographic region.

kycubsfan's argument may be found lacking by the commish, and many many of us are hopeful that it is, but thanks for taking an interest! Many people are happy to sit back and let things happen to them. kycubsfan isn't one of those people. Good for him!

I'm glad you feel this way.

Like I said, I predict that channel 31 1kw omni from Clay's Ferry would have as good or better chance at giving kycubsfan a stable signal vs. the way it is now. The other thing about uhf/hi vhf is better ability to build a high performance antenna vs. low band.

It's highly possible that I will have to attempt this for WDKY in the near future, so I hope you're right.

Do you have any estimations of the gain you're getting out of that quad? I'm thinking I may try something like that on the roof before going with a tower, as I could probably catch a bounce off a ridge with enough gain/multipath resistance.

I think I'm more jealous of you and the other OTA guys in Corbin than I am of those in the Bluegrass. That TVFool plot you posted is like OTA pr0n.

Obviously, regarding his comments he submitted to FCC and from his point of view(and mine, BTW) he is not arguing for such a occurance, therefore neither would you(or "I") be if it were the case you(or "I") shared his opinion on the matter ....

Yeah, I'm certainly not out to hurt anybody.

I cannot and do not want to represent myself as a Sinclair employee in this forum. Even if I were, why would I want to give up the freedom to speak my mind :) So let's please stick with "I have a somewhat reliable source that works at WDKY." To answer Nightwatchman's concerns,

The reason I commented on this does not involve the "personal information" part of it. I'm certianly well aware anything I send to a TV station ends up in the stations' public file, which is required to be available at the station for anyone who wants to to inspect it ... However, I suspect it very well may be the case some, if not many of those who submitted the reception reports attached to WDKY and WSYX's recent filings regarding their Channel change petitions were not aware of this ....


WDKY informed their viewers by reply to their e-mail that their comments would be forwarded to the FCC in support of the petition. WDKY did not receive any requests to be excluded from the petition. Here is an example text from of one of the WDKY replies:



WDKY has petitioned the FCC for UHF channel 31 once it becomes available on Feb 18 2009. We will include your comments with our correspondence with the FCC. WDKY believes that our viewers would be better served with a full power UHF channel.

Thanks for watching WDKY Fox-56

WDKY Engineering

If a viewer requested that their comments were to be excluded, I'm sure that they were.

kycubsfan sent his letter to WDKY, the FCC, and several members of the federal government that represent him. WDKY did not forward this letter to the FCC, WDKY was well aware that the letter was already in their possession, the letter itself stated that the FCC was copied. WDKY did not receive any other letters requesting that they stay on channel 4, and WDKY was not required or requested to submit e-mail or anything else from supporters of the low V channel if such e-mail even exists.

As far as professionalism, WDKY has come a long way with reliability over the last 4 years. This can be attributed to several things. The current chief engineer came from a major network background and he demands redundancy wherever possible. The new $5 million dollar transmitter is a vast improvement over the used channel 57 transmitter in Buena Vista. The Columbus hub is state of the art. There were some growing pains, but WDKY has improved and is still working to improve every day.

As far as my professionalism in this forum, this is a place I visit to gather and share information. I am very grateful for this forum and all of its users. I would never try to insult anyone, and if I do please be sure it's unintentional. I find humor everywhere, and life is too short to be serious all of the time :)

I really think the FCC will decide that low V is unacceptable for DTV, and they will find a better use for the band.

As far as professionalism, WDKY has come a long way with reliability over the last 4 years. This can be attributed to several things. The current chief engineer came from a major network background and he demands redundancy wherever possible. The new $5 million dollar transmitter is a vast improvement over the used channel 57 transmitter in Buena Vista. The Columbus hub is state of the art. There were some growing pains, but WDKY has improved and is still working to improve every day.

I concur with this. There was a point several years ago when the station wouldn't have been worth fighting to keep, and thankfully that's no longer the case. Aside from the FOX sports, they have the only HD local news available to me, and my DVR appreciates the Sunday overnight showing of the remastered Star Trek.

I really think the FCC will decide that low V is unacceptable for DTV, and they will find a better use for the band.

Since you have some insight into the operation of WDKY, I'll ask this. If you can't answer, I completely understand.

Did they come to the VHF-4 assignment purely by accident?

If VHF-4 was sought, was it the low power bill, potential reach into the mountains, or all of the above that led them to choose it?

At what point did they sour on VHF-4? At the time they were assigned, I thought it was brilliant. With one stroke, they had the longest reach of anyone in Lexington.

Did they come to the VHF-4 assignment purely by accident?

If VHF-4 was sought, was it the low power bill, potential reach into the mountains, or all of the above that led them to choose it?

At what point did they sour on VHF-4? At the time they were assigned, I thought it was brilliant. With one stroke, they had the longest reach of anyone in Lexington.

I can answer some, maybe all, of these questions to the best of my ability and understanding.

At no time did Sinclair believe that channel 4 was acceptable. WDKY requested a change to channel 21, and it was denied. I was not in contact with the WDKY engineering staff at the time, but I have been told repeatedly and forcefully that the FCC assigned WDKY channel 4, it was not by Sinclair's choice. I was told this by one of the Sinclair corporate engineers in Baltimore. I'm not going to mention anyone by name as it would serve no purpose other than limit my ability to write freely. I'm not sure why WDKY waited until now to request channel 31, I would guess that since there were no channels available, there was no reason to make the request earlier.

The channel 56 transmit antenna was purchased with the intent to retune it to a different UHF channel and utilize it for DTV. The Acrodyne transmitter with ESCIOT tubes (pardon the T - tubes redundancy) can be utilized as a UHF DTV transmitter. WDKY did not purchase a brand new two tube fully redundant UHF transmitter in 2004 without plans to reuse it as a DTV transmitter. This was the plan from the beginning. WDKY could have relocated the Buena Vista transmitter (man that would have been a nightmare) and saved the expense of purchasing a new one. WDKY could have purchased a smaller emergency generator if they planned to stay on channel 4, instead they purchased a monster 500 kW.

I believe that WDKY was never comfortable having a low VHF channel in a formerly all UHF market. If you answer a few viewer calls from older folks that have no business climbing on a roof to replace their UHF antennas, you would understand. Moving WDKY to UHF would vastly reduce the number of antennas that need replaced. There are many poor people here, and they do not want to hear that they need to spend money to continue watching television.

I believe that WKYT would want WDKY to stay on channel 4. If there are two VHF channels, people are more likely to spend the money to receive them. Many people receive channel 13 on their UHF antennas, I do not believe that WKYT is nearly as difficult to receive as WDKY. This is from personal experience as well as from my correspondence with many WDKY viewers, and let's include the experience of viewers that use this forum.

I have argued both for and against the low V, it's all in this forum somewhere. "For" includes lower power bills, solid state transmitter, less transmitter maintenance, better contour, and terrain following signal. "Against" would include installed base of UHF antennas, impulse noise, electronic interference, smaller and cheaper antennas, indoor reception, and mobile reception.

I would hesitate to commit Sinclair to the expense of moving the channel 4 transmitter to Harlan based on one issue. If the commish decides that channel 4 is not acceptable to use as a DTV channel, I would expect them to find a new use for channels 2-6. I think a repeater is a good idea, but maybe a low power UHF installed on a mountain top or two. What will end up happening is that Dish and Direct will carry the locals in HD, and Sinclair will be hesitant to spend the money to cover the very few (about 8% total in the entire DMA) OTA only viewers. Unfortunately this will be a simple ROI calculation and it wont look good. I like the idea of maybe having a transmitter in Eastern Kentucky that has 4 SD channels, one for each network. I'm not sure how that will work, or if soemone else is doing this in another market, but it is an interesting idea. I know all the local broadcasters cooperate with each other, so this might work in our DMA.

Channel 4 was given to them by the FCC, by accident. WDKY knew of the problem with it years ago and attempted to get relocated to channel 22 but was denied due to interference concerns with WUPX-DT 21.

- Trip

So the FCC has accidents too. I'm glad we are all human. Thanks Trip! BTW thanks for the channel 22 correction, I'm dyslexic (doesn't that explain a lot)

Not by accident as in "intended to give them 48 but screwed up" but as in WDKY didn't ask for it and didn't want it.

One of the other stations could have ended up with it just as easily.

It was assigned mostly by a computer program. You might check out transmitter.com sometime, that site has some of the proposed allocation tables from before the final, and before stations moved around.

- Trip

Thanks for the insight guys, it's all very interesting.

Trip, when do you expect that we'll get a decision? I didn't see it mentioned on the December 18 agenda.

Thanks again Trip, I've worked with many federal employees over the years at FAA ARTCCs and military installations, DOJ facilities and the like. The people I've met don't come off as the kind of people that screw things up. Ever. They are all as serious as a heart attack. My faith has been restored :)

Thanks for the insight guys, it's all very interesting.

Trip, when do you expect that we'll get a decision? I didn't see it mentioned on the December 18 agenda.

I don't think this is something that is voted on, but I'm not sure. The decisions have been slowly leaking out one or two at a time since September.

- Trip

A few comments and questions.

I'm in Harrison county, 30 miles north of the Clays Ferry transmitters. I received WDKY-D on an eave mounted UHF antenna (the pointy kind, not a bow-tie) more reliably than KET. Now with a roof mounted "7-69" combo, still comes in fine, even with the antenna pointed at Cincinnati (why I got it, to save me from the horror of WKYT, which it's doing well so far but not for long I fear.) Over the years in the analog days, I'd ask city residents how their reception was for WDKY and the answer was always the same - terrible. Looks like it's still terrible, but with distance it improves with digital?

Does anyone know why the WTVQ picture is so washed out and soft on SD? It always has been, but I thought it might improve and it hasn't.

Although the Cinncy folks routinely complain about WKRC (I guess it's a cheapo station) their picture looks like what you'd expect for network HD on casual inspection, unlike WKYT. This hasn't changed so far, still far more detailed than WKYT.

WDKY informed their viewers by reply to their e-mail that their comments would be forwarded to the FCC in support of the petition.


That's good to hear, thanks for providing that info.


To answer Nightwatchman's concerns,


Do understand I recognize the above was my only "concern"(not plural, and your word not mine) which you addressed in your reply to my post.


At no time did Sinclair believe that channel 4 was acceptable.


I'll ask again(for the last time) :

I'm curious WHY did WDKY/Sinclair not attempt to get off channel 4 during channel elections, including in the 3rd round ? Given their earlier petition involving channel 22, and now your above quoted comment I had expected during channel elections they would have elected, or made attempt to get off lo-VHF during channel elections ....

DOES their interest in Mobile DTV(M/H) have anything to do with it ?

While it's perfectly understandable that you likely won't answer or be able to answer these questions, I feel they are important ones to have answers to given some of the "information" you have been providing regarding issues such as is provided in the above quote, as well as regarding information on issues such as how much $$ it would take them to move to 31 ...... These, among others would also be questions I'd imagine FCC might be interested in regarding the channel petition proceeding ....


kycubsfan sent his letter to WDKY, the FCC, and several members of the federal government that represent him. WDKY did not forward this letter to the FCC, WDKY was well aware that the letter was already in their possession, the letter itself stated that the FCC was copied. WDKY did not receive any other letters requesting that they stay on channel 4 ...


I had no "concerns" regarding the above information whatsoever .... I'm aware that is how filing of such comments works ....


WDKY was not required or requested to submit e-mail or anything else from supporters of the low V channel if such e-mail even exists.


Of course not, and I did not say they did. I would point out however, I'm sure FCC realizes many folks experience reception issues on *any* channel, and stations operating on *ANY* channel certianly receive reception complaints similar to those attached to the WDKY filings in their channel change petition ..

I'm not going to go through the points involved again which I've already made in my first post on this thread regarding this issue(and apparently were of "little interest" to you), but it is still my opinion WDKY (nor WSYX in their case) has not presented a very convincing case to FCC to support their position ...

And, again, I personally think both WDKY and WSYX channel changes are a good idea, in BOTH cases for reasons I've already mentioned.


As far as professionalism, WDKY has come a long way with reliability over the last 4 years.


I have stated no "concerns" about that regarding WDKY operations ...


I really think the FCC will decide that low V is unacceptable for DTV, and they will find a better use for the band.

They did originally think that, but as I posted earlier, certian folks (certian broadcasters, mainly -- ) "convinced" them otherwise around the time the original (for during the transition) DTV table of allotments was being developed ...

BTW, I recall Fox was one of the parties which submitted comments at the time which opposed using 2-6 for DTV ... I don't recall if Sinclair submitted any comments or not during the proceeding involved, if they did I'm sure it likely wasn't in favor for Lo-VHF DTV .....


I believe that WDKY was never comfortable having a low VHF channel in a formerly all UHF market. If you answer a few viewer calls from older folks that have no business climbing on a roof to replace their UHF antennas, you would understand. Moving WDKY to UHF would vastly reduce the number of antennas that need replaced. There are many poor people here, and they do not want to hear that they need to spend money to continue watching television.


Well said, I agree, and that's the MAIN reason(UHF only analog market/UHF only antennas already in use) why I think moving WDKY-DT to UHF is a good idea ... Again, for the same reason, I think the same would be true (although to a bit lesser degree given the frequency allocation involved) regarding WKYT ...

Yet, unless I missed something I don't see anything that specifically argues that point in Sinclair/WDKY's filings to FCC on the matter ...

I had intended to post the following a couple of days ago, but didn't get a chance to do so and it ended up on the "back burner" so to speak. Sorry for the delay in response ....


I have attached radar plots for the current 30 ft. height, as well as for my planned 100 ft. tower. I appreciate your collective insight into my situation.


PT I - TVfool prediction thoughts :

The 2edge diffraction prediction for them makes sense, but if the -119dBm/-28.2dBm signal strength/NM prediction for WDKY 4 for the 30FT location were accurate you would need an antenna with about 30dB gain, and system NF of about 2dB to be able to decode them just at the threshold for decoding DTV . ... The WYMT prediction, however, seems more likely to be closer to being accurate although I would be surprised given the antenna setup you are using and your reported results if it weren't actually at least a little stronger in the real world than is predicted as well.

My best guess(just a guess) might be that perhaps the L-R modelling being used isn't working very well for some reason in this specific case regarding the specific terrain issues involved in direction of WDKY, and possibly also specifically regarding the 30ft antenna height. If it's not the latter so much and if the 100FT antenna height isn't necessarily showing you something that's very close to being accurate for the WDKY prediction either, probably a longshot, but perhaps it may be possible the 100FT antenna height may help you more with other Lexington stations that don't show up on the list ...

Attached below as "jeff-radar-digital.png" is my pre-transition TV-fool plot. Thought you might find what it says for WDKY 4 interersting along with my reception results of WDKY-DT I've posted in previous posts vs. your TVfool prediction and results for WDKY. For my TVfool plot, for WDKY-DT(118 Miles distant) It says "tropo"(as we'd expect from a location so far outside their predicted service area) for them, but for signal strength it predicts -97dBm (-6.4dB NM) for WDKY 4 with receive antenna at 35ft (Which, btw is approx 838ft ASL here) ...

-------------------------------------------------------------

Pt II additional Elevation Plots :


Using the azimuth bearing and distance information from kycubsfan TVfool plot as well as the (not precise) coordinate info from his plot and checking it against the elevation info he provided for his location in an earlier post, as well as information on WDKY's transmit location from FCC dababase, I've attached plots of an elevation profile between the two locations that provides a bit more detail(elevation wise) than the TVfool plot.

with the information available, the location used for kycubsfan receive location is not entirely precise, but should be pretty close.

Kycubsfantowdky.jpg is elevation profile of entire distance between WDKY and Kycubsfan. Kycubsfan location is at 0 mile marker. I've drawn in WDKY-DT's current antenna height(red vertical line at right), and simply drew a line to connect it with kycubsfan (approx) receive location. Do Keep in mind this does *NOT* take curvature of earth into account(so the situation is actually worse than this).

First4tenthsmiletowdky.jpg - Given the entire profile involves squeezing in 59 miles of terrain data into a few inches of space, and it's difficult to see what is going on in the area closest to kycubsfan, I've also included this profile, which Only includes the first .38 mile of the terrain profile(to the top of the nearest hill), and what I suspect is the biggest "problem issue" involved for him concerning his reception of the Clay's ferry stations.

Oh, note the profile to the other Lexington stations farther north is so similar because from his location/that distance the differences in heading is only a couple of degrees at most and thus the elevation profiles involved are very similar, except the distance involved is greater(about 71 miles to WLEX or WKYT for instance).

I'm curious WHY did WDKY/Sinclair not attempt to get off channel 4 during channel elections, including in the 3rd round ? Given their earlier petition involving channel 22, and now your above quoted comment I had expected during channel elections they would have elected, or made attempt to get off lo-VHF during channel elections ....

DOES their interest in Mobile DTV(M/H) have anything to do with it ?

I do not know the answer to the question. I did offer in answer to kycubsfan questions that "I'm not sure why WDKY waited until now to request channel 31, I would guess that since there were no channels available, there was no reason to make the request earlier." That's my best guess. If the Sinclair corporate engineers have other motives, they are not sharing them with me. I'm glad we are done asking this question since I'm clueless anyway :)

It looks like Sinclair's extent of arguing that low-v is unacceptable rests in this passage contained in the PRM:

2 The Commission has recognized that in some cases low VHF channels may not offer the best possible DTV service to the public based upon interference concerns. See, e.g., Second Periodic Review of the Commission 's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, 19 FCC Rcd 18279, n.129 (2004); Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, 44 CR 731, ~ 73 (2008). This has been WKDY's experience with its operations on Channel 4 in Danville.


Maybe that's enough?

I'm trying my best to provide all the information that I have. Other than KET, I don't see much representation in here from the local stations. As far as my interest in the subject, I'm here. Please don't mistake a lame attempt at humor as a lack of interest. As anyone knows that's been communicating over the internet in chat and forums over the past 10 or 15 years, It's difficult to detect someone's intent by the tone of their typing. Imagine me with a big goofy smile on my face when you attempt to figure out what I'm struggling to communicate. I don't get upset, I don't take offense, and I don't attempt to offend. (the following is for the people posting in my defense) I have not taken offense to anything Nightwatchman has posted, his posts are intelligent conversation and acceptable form as far as I'm concerned. I'm a big boy, heck I've even been married. Twice.

I had intended to post the following a couple of days ago, but didn't get a chance to do so and it ended up on the "back burner" so to speak. Sorry for the delay in response ....

Fantastic plots and analysis, thanks so much.

There does seem to be some discrepancy between what TVFool predicts at 30 ft. and what I'm experiencing. The 100 ft. plot is more accurate for what I see with my current installation, with WAGV-DT out of Harlan representing my personal reception floor at a predicted -14.1 NM(dB.)

It's interesting that the extra 70 ft. in height kicks WDKY from -27.8 NM(dB) to -3.8NM(dB,) but only boosts WAGV from -15.5 NM(dB) to -14.1 NM(dB.)

Over the years in the analog days, I'd ask city residents how their reception was for WDKY and the answer was always the same - terrible. Looks like it's still terrible, but with distance it improves with digital?

fjames, much has changed at WDKY over the years with WDKY analog. WDKY analog isn't so terrible anymore, but of course it is about to sign off permanently. WDKY digital, well where do we start? I would say, and this is backed by some testing I have conducted in the area, that nearly everyone in and around Lexington can receive WDKY-DT with a proper antenna. Nobody will receive WDKY-DT without some impulse noise issues from time to time. Nobody. The Dish Network receive site in Lexington has trouble receiving the WDKY-DT signal without impulse noise. Dish has reverted back to utilizing the analog broadcast on occasion as a result. They have two inputs to their encoder and they are able to switch remotely between analog and digital receivers. I have not visited the Dish receive site, but I have discussed this problem with their field service rep. Hopefully Dish will resolve this issue before Feb 18. Anyway a little off topic, the point is that Dish is doing everything right, Yagi antenna, good antenna elevation, properly shielded cable. I do not know if they have tried any sort of filtering, but this isn't a UHF antenna pointed the wrong direction. This is an "A" contour receive site with issues. "Terrible", I'm not sure that's the word I would choose to describe the situation. Difficult, absolutely. If by distance, you mean out of town, there tends to be less impulse noise outside of urban areas. My neighbor has an electric fence. I can tune it in on AM, (click click click) and it knocks the heck out of WDKY when it's dry outside.

Is there something about his WDKY analog or WKLE analog or Digital UHF reception which "encourages you" that he'll be able to get a usuable signal from the proposed WDKY-DT ch 31 1MW Non-DA facility regarding the higher power level involved and possibly a few~several more dB gain from a "better receive antenna ?



Semi-Educated guess really. He needs better uhf performance anyway to pick up the local Hazard KET and also to have a shot at Knoxville/Bristol, so his best bet looks like a setup optimized for low uhf/hi band/low band. He has a good low band antenna already but just needs to decide whether he'll be pointing towards Clay's Ferry or Bristol.:)

Do you have any estimations of the gain you're getting out of that quad? I'm thinking I may try something like that on the roof before going with a tower, as I could probably catch a bounce off a ridge with enough gain/multipath resistance.

.

Probably around 22dbd. This assumes around 17dbd gain for a single antenna over ch. 14-38 and 5 db extra for the stack. Beamwidth is around +/- 2 degrees.

"I'm not sure why WDKY waited until now to request channel 31, I would guess that since there were no channels available, there was no reason to make the request earlier."


But, Channel election was about channels which would be available post transition. Given the rules involved, For example, after WKRC made their election in 1st round for 12, it was then pretty much known at that time 31 would be available in the area, and WDKY could have even "changed" their election in third round given certian rules involved which applied to Lo-VHF stations. More on the details involved regarding channel election in a bit ...


It looks like Sinclair's extent of arguing that low-v is unacceptable rests in this passage contained in the PRM:



2 The Commission has recognized that in some cases low VHF channels may not offer the best possible DTV service to the public based upon interference concerns. See, e.g., Second Periodic Review of the Commission 's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, 19 FCC Rcd 18279, n.129 (2004); Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, 44 CR 731, ~ 73 (2008). This has been WKDY's experience with its operations on Channel 4 in Danville.


Another reference to the above (footnote #4 referenced above as well) was contained in their most recent reply comments in the proceeding :


However, Mr. Dobson's letter fails to point out that the FCC disagrees with his claim regarding low VHF DTV channels and has repeatedly recognized that low VHF channels offer less favorable DTV service to the public than do UHF channels.4


Here' s the text of what they are actually referencing in those footnotes, mainly I think the portion I bold below :


Some commenters contend that in some cases low VHF channels may not offer licensees the ability to provide the best DTV service to the public. See, e.g., MSTV Ex Parte at 16-17; and Capitol Broadcasting Ex Parte dated July 27, 2004 at 1. Although the data are incomplete at this time, we are persuaded that low VHF licensees should be afforded an additional opportunity to find a channel that may better serve the public. For this reason, we will also permit two in-core low VHF licensees to release both of their channels after the first round so that they may be treated as two out-of-core licensee and participate in the second round of elections. MSTV proposed an additional election round for licensees who found their prior election unacceptable and contemplated that licensees which had to choose between two low VHF channels would be among those possibly dissatisfied licensees. MSTV Ex Parte at 8. Stations with international coordination issues may also need this additional flexibility in the event that the channel initially elected does not receive international clearance at the expected facilities.


Also see :

Also see N. 87 in the Second DTV review Report and order, especially note the portion i"ve Bolded :


We will permit two in-core low VHF licensees to release both of their channels in the first round and agree to be treated as two out-of-core licensees and participate in the second round of elections. See note 129, infra. Licensees that choose to elect, and which receive a tentative channel designation for, their in-core low VHF channel will have an opportunity to make an alternate election in the third round. See section IV.A.1.f., infra.


Do you see any reference to "interference" in there ? Does FCC actually come out and say in that document that their position is that "low VHF channels offer less favorable DTV service to the public than do UHF channels" ???? They very well may in the future, but I don't see it there .....

No, I believe it is clear they are saying they were ALLOWING stations to get off lo-VHF during channel election if they wanted to because "some commenters" believe that in some cases low-VHF channels may not offer licensees the ability to provide the best DTV service to the public .....

Nevertheless, the suitability of lo-VHF for DTV was however, indeed an "issue" discussed by FCC and comments filed by interested parties around the time the DTV table of allotments for during the transition was being developed, involving docket 87-268 ["the DTV proceeding"] back in the late 90's and involving the 6th "DTV" Report and order, and the later "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF THE SIXTH REPORT AND ORDER." In fact, as I mentioned earlier, and as also is brought up in WDKY's most recent reply comments in the ch 31 proceeding(regarding footnote 5 and Exhibit #1), FCC in those earlier documents originally did essentially say they thought low-VHF might not be suitable for DTV. HOWEVER, they ended up actually deciding something else .... More on that in a bit ...


Maybe that's enough?


Other than as it supports that FCC is apparently willing to take special consierations to allow stations to "get off" low-VHF if they want ---- (which I agree is a good idea) --- nevertheless, while it's true FCC *originally* said they thought 2-6 wouldn't be suitable for DTV(before it was actually known whether or not that was true), I don't entirely understand this particular reference(involving footnote 4 in their most recent reply comments or in the PRM) to that portion of 2nd DTV review within WDKY's comments in support of their channel change petition , given :

#1). that it involves channel elections, specifically. And, If I understand them correctly, I believe the rules say, in their case they could have even CHANGED their earlier election in the 3rd round ... (I'll quote those rules later in this post) ....

#2). Given what FCC had said about lo-VHF for DTV in earlier DTV proceedings which I do not believe they've revisted further or changed their decisions on :

Some Examples : First, involving The "Final Decision" from FCC to include channel 2~6 in the core - again note this is also part of what is referenced in sinclair's most recent reply comments in the Channel 31 procceding, specifically involving "exhibit one" from a consulting engineer ... and btw, I do indeed agree with what *he* says in the exhibit about this/his overall assesment regarding what has happened with FCC regarding lo-VHF, and indeed, it is probably the BEST argument (IMO) they offer in their comments for the channel 31 petition, although I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with WDKY's comments which reference exhibit #1 via footnote #5 , the portion of it which says "[FCC].... has continued to cast doubt on the usefulness of low VHF digital channels 2_6. 5 " --- If FCC has done that, I certianly haven't seen it anywhere in the "Public record" ..... Not that it isn't there, but I haven't seen it .... :


33. As noted in the Sixth Report and Order, one of our principal concerns in this proceeding is to provide broadcasters with the best possible spectrum for DTV service.23 In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated that a core region between channels 7-51 may be the most appropriate location for DTV broadcasting; that this spectrum would be sufficient to accommodate all existing broadcasters; and that it would provide additional DTV channels for
new entrants after the conversion to digital service.24 We noted that the lower VHF channels 2-6 are subject to technical penalties, including higher ambient noise levels and concerns of possible interference to and from FM radio service. We did, however, recognize that these channels offer
unique characteristics for broadcasting, particularly with regard to propagation. In the Sixth Report and Order, we recognized that a number of commenting parties strongly believed that DTV signals can perform well in the presence of noise and that the lower VHF channels 2-6, with their desirable propagation characteristics, should be made part of the DTV core spectrum.
However, other parties agreed with our initial assessment that these channels may not be appropriate for TV use. We therefore concluded that the best approach was to develop the DTV Table based on use of channels 2-51, and modified our allotment software to attempt to locate all DTV channels within this portion of the spectrum. We stated that if channels 2-6 prove acceptable for DTV use, we will consider retaining these channels for DTV use and adjusting the core spectrum to encompass channels 2-46, rather than channels 7-51........

41. Decision. We recognize that postponing a decision on the low-VHF channels has raised uncertainties for licensees whose existing and/or DTV channels are in that portion of the spectrum. We further understand that these uncertainties can make planning for DTV service more difficult and burdensome. We also concur that there is no engineering evidence available
at this time to indicate that these channels are unsuitable for DTV operation and such channels offer desirable propagation characteristics for television service. We therefore recognize the benefits of including these channels in the core spectrum. We also note, however, that a DTV core spectrum of channels 2-46 would require significantly more second moves by broadcasters
than a core of channels 7-51. In reconsidering this matter, we now believe that the most desirable course of action is to expand the core to include all channels 2-51.


And, another "snippet" --- In this case, involving a request from NRB (National Religious Broadcasters association) for FCC to reconsider to their decision to allow channel 6 into the DTV core spectrum :


57. We continue to believe that it is important to maintain the availability of channel 6 for television service. Channel 6 has advantageous propagation properties and has proven very desirable for television operation – as indicated by the fact that there are currently more than 55 NTSC television stations on this channel. We believe it would be undesirable to remove channel 6 from the core spectrum or to impose additional restrictions on use of this channel for DTV service after the transition. In this regard, we do not find that the additional opportunities for increasing FM noncommercial coverage would outweigh the costs of eliminating channel 6 from TV service. While we recognize that the use of channel 6 for television service necessitates some limitations on stations in the noncommercial FM radio service, we also note that FM noncommercial radio services in the 88-92 MHz band and NTSC television services on channel 6 have operated successfully in many areas. We further note that the robust nature of the DTV signal with regard to interference and the lower transmission power requirements of DTV system may enhance the co-existence of these services and may provide noncommercial FM stations with additional opportunities to increase their coverage. In fact, in most situations, protection of an FM station is improved with regard to DTV service when the FM station operates at power levels greater than 3 kW. We therefore continue to find that the measures that we have already taken adequately consider the interests of noncommercial FM stations with regard to continued use of channel 6 for television broadcasting. Accordingly, we are denying NRB’s request.



---------------------------------------------

Sorry, I have all these documents(and many more, including the documents involving WDKY's 2001'ish petition to move to 22) archvied here and don't have the links handy currently, but the full text of them are available "somewhere" on FCC site ...

I think To gain at least better understand of it, and I think FCC's "position" on the matter, I think it is important to read through(and even study a bit) all of the sections of those documents(and a few others) involved - The "issue" regarding possible expanison of FM band down into channel 6 has been addressed in other more recent documents and proceedings as well, with essentially the same "decision" as involving the NRB petition.

And, There are for example some other interesting "bits" of interest as it pertains to this situation in 2nd DTV review, but it would be WAY too long to quote everything of interest, here. But, here's some short(yeah Right!) "snippets" :


30. We therefore conclude that stations are likely to understand the performance characteristics of the DTV transmission standard and to know which channel they prefer to operate on after the transition .....



.... Upon completion of the first round and subsequent interference conflict analysis, each licensee electing an in-core channel will receive an informal tentative channel designation, to the extent possible. Licensees with two in-core channels (including those with two low VHF channels (i.e., channels 2-6) ) will make the first channel elections, choosing between their two in-core channels. Licensees with only one in-core channel will be required to elect whether to keep their in-core channel, or turn it in and be treated like a licensee with two out-of-core channels ...



49. Elections by one in-core licensees. Licensees with only one in-core channel (including singletons ), including those with low VHF channels (2-6), must elect to either (1) keep their in-core channel or (2) release their in-core channel in favor of being treated like a licensee with two out-of-core channels. MSTV proposed that we assume that such stations would decide to remain on their in-core channels; however, we find that it is more efficient to determine which in-core channels are unacceptable to these stations so that those channels can become available for future elections and to ensure that those stations are given an opportunity to identify a workable channel.

51. Later opportunity to change elections of low VHF channels and channels subject to international coordination. Licensees electing, and receiving a tentative channel designation for, a low VHF channel or a channel subject to a pending international coordination issue will be permitted to seek an alternate tentative channel designation in the third round of elections. See discussion in section IV.A.1.f., infra.



f. Step 6: Third and final round of elections
62. We will hold a third round of elections, expected to occur in January 2006, to find channels for licensees that were not “locked in” at tentative channel designations in the previous two rounds. This third round provides a subsequent round for two out-of-core licensees whose election preferences could not be accommodated in their initial round of elections. We agree with MSTV that these licensees, as well as any other licensees that remain unplaced at this time, should be afforded the opportunity to make one additional channel election preference. Election preferences made in this round must protect all “locked in” channels. If a licensee is not able to specify a preferred channel on which it can operate satisfactorily without conflicting with a protected channel, it may ask the Commission to specify a channel for its use at full replication facilities. In such cases, the Commission will select a channel that minimizes new interference among all affected stations.

63. In this third round, we will also permit licensees with a low VHF channel or a channel subject to international coordination issues to seek an alternate tentative channel designation. Specifically, to the extent a preferred channel is available in this final election round, we will allow such licensees to elect a different channel for their final DTV operations, notwithstanding that they have an elected and “locked in” channel. These licensees may also request that the Commission determine a “best available” channel for them at full replication facilities. No other licensees with an elected (and “locked in”) channel will be permitted to participate in this third and final round of elections.

64. Conflicts among third round preferences. In deciding among third round election preferences, we will determine on a case-by-case basis what channel best replicates a station’s service area while minimizing new interference to other stations. This analysis includes considerations of service to the public – including service to local communities – and overall spectrum efficiency. We will also consider in our analysis those factors enumerated by MSTV: (1) whether the station was an early adopter of DTV technology (i.e., the length of time the station has been operating on DTV); (2) the impact on the public’s access to DTV services (i.e., the population served by the station’s digital signal and the percentage of replication population covered); (3) whether one or both of the station’s channels is/are in the low VHF band (which might weigh in favor of that station receiving priority); (4) whether coordination with or interference to or from Canada or Mexico is a problem; (5) the existence of any zoning, environmental or other such issues; and (6) any other factors that may be relevant at the time.



I'm trying my best to provide all the information that I have.


Which I for one certianly very much appreciates. And BTW, I am doing the same ... Although if I went and "picked through" all the comments filed in the Ch 31 proceeding, It would take a post the length of a book, or probably a "congressional report" of 1000's of pages to adequetely "examine" all the issues involved ....


Please don't mistake a lame attempt at humor as a lack of interest.


I didn't really, given your "later" posts on the matter, but keep in mind I can only "read" what you write, and given you did not comment on many of the issues brought up and discussed previously, yes, regarding that "intent" thing I'm not a mind reader, nor is anyone else here ...

So when you said that the thing you found of most interest regarding what had been posted about the channel change petition so far involved the post (including my rather lame attempt of humor) about outhouses/etc, Although I expected there was an intent of humor involved as well, nevertheless I took you at your word that's exactly what you meant .... That of course does not mean it wasn't humorous as well, but Of course, I believe you've since demonstrated you "interest" goes a little farther than that in any case ....


It's difficult to detect someone's intent by the tone of their typing.


In my case, I should defintely probably point out my intention is NOT to give Sinclair, You or WDKY a "hard time". In fact, regarding several matters regarding OTA broadcasting, DTV transition and what Sinclair has done, I *agree* and applaud their actions. And, It's been a while, but I've also talked with some of the Sinclair folks on previous occasions regarding various matters, Including a fellow in Baltimore who is also a "ATSC guy", (maybe the same guy you've talked to, he actually used to post on this forum quite often) as well as several folks at WKEF/WRGT and WSYX/WTTE. I have not talked to anyone "personally" at WSTR, never had any luck contacting anyone there(I did send signal report to them when their digital station first came on air ....) ......

Anyway, I know in every case they are fine "professional" folks who are doing a great job, and I have allways enjoyed our converstations and have been VERY impressed at what they've been doing regarding improving things, espeically the past few years, and especially given the smaller market status of the "non-columbus" stations involved .... HD news from WDKY-DT (which when I've checked it out it looks quite well done) For instance ... No HD local news yet, but even WKEF/WRGT has been running some syndicated HD programming as of late (I may be the only one who has noticed), and all have done a fine job providing network HD, and "quality" HD pictures ..... And, some of the upconverted material I've seen on WSYX probably involves among the highest quality I've seen for such material ....

However, I also have to say what I think is "right" involving this particular, specific matter. Including involving providing accurate information, and involving the points I *agree* with kycubsfan about, to the point I feel compelled to "back him up", because I believe it was/is the RIGHT thing to do ..... and Especially given/involving the "speculative" nature of WDKY's comments regarding his reception .....and given I suspected beforehand his thoughts+opinions were not going to go over well with some folks here ... And, THAT(all of this paragraph) really has been my primary intention regarding my recent posts regarding the WDKY channel change ...

I've been through this before concerning these sorts of "lo-VHF" discussions, so I admit I'm a little "battle weary" from it, such that I may indeed seem a bit overly defensive about it at times. If so I apologize for that. Especially since It's the case that I'm not a big proponent of Lo-VHF for DTV(although I've certianly been accused of such). I know the problems involved with it. HOWEVER, I also know It's not as bad as some people seem to be convinced is the case, and I know there ARE situations where it is useful, such as when severe terrain makes usuable reception of signals on higher frequencies difficult, if not impossible.

In fact, you are one of the very few folks on this forum I've seen (and appreciate) who seems to have a more balanced understanding of the issue ... Many folks seem to be convinced "Lo-VHF for DTV just plain sucks, no matter what and no matter when". Kinda difficult to explain it isn't "quite that bad" when someone is convinced that it is ....

In any case, I think ch 2-6 could be used for *something* useful that's for sure, and I don't think it makes sense for it to be used only by the small number of broadcasters who, as it stands now, will be using it post-transition ...


I have not taken offense to anything Nightwatchman has posted, his posts are intelligent conversation and acceptable form as far as I'm concerned. I'm a big boy, heck I've even been married. Twice.

Same here regarding your comments, and thanks for the compliment and I'm glad you see it that way ....

Also, I'm not easily "personally" offended either ... but, I do have a strong distaste when my comments are "obfuscated" by others to the point they "seem" to end up meaning something I did not say .... and something else, If I'm wrong about something, PLEASE correct it ... I'll gladly admit I'm wrong and appreciate such corrections ... we ALL make mistakes ....

Anyway, WAY more than enough said there, probably more than you or anyone wanted to hear ..... But there you go FWIW ....

He has a good low band antenna already but just needs to decide whether he'll be pointing towards Clay's Ferry or Bristol.:)

I hope you guys are aware of the "WSD" issue. I posted link earlier in this thread to a thread in HDTV "technical area" with info, including links/info on the new FCC rules for the WSD operations, earlier ..

If you are more than a very short distance outside of stations predicted service contour, regardless of how well you are receiving such station, a nearby WSD (white space device, now known officically at FCC as "TVBD" - TV band devices) could very well(legally) fire up on the same channel and destroy your reception of such signals .... The portable/personal WSD's are going to use a database which involves station/service area information to "know" which channels they can operate on, there are fixed WSD's allowed (with outdoor antennas up to 6db gain, 4 watts EIRP if I recall correctly) as well, such as to provide wireless internet services to rural users ....

You're not protected from interference from the WSD's, when they become available and begin operating unless you are *within* the stations predicted service contour ...

If you are a "cable head end" receiving distant stations, FCC will protect you from interference from the WSD's, but not if you're just an indivdual household/family and have spent $$$ or $$$$ on towers and antennas and the like, in which case you're screwed if a nearby WSD fires up on the channel of distant station your trying to receive or "drives by" ...

Yeah, It sucks ... FCC adopted the rules w/o a public comment period for the R&O involved in their Nov 4th meeting ...

I believe WDKY broadcast the first Superbowl in HD in 2004. I had just gotten my MDP-120 HDTV tuner card in my PC and remember having a heck of a time tuning FOX in Lexington from Keithshire Way area. I had been trying for several weeks to pick up any stable WDKY signal. I got miraculously lucky with the signal that overcast day and enough signal reined into my apartment to allow the signal to lock fairly stable (just in time for Janet Jackson to have a wardrobe malfunction and show us her boob.. HD boob! :) ) It wasn't until after that the 83" wireloop antenna experimentation began that significantly improved my reception of WDKY (oh yeah and hanging that 18" Sabian cymbal on the attic wall made the signal even better for that crazy homebrew antenna rig).

I believe WDKY broadcast the first Superbowl in HD in 2004. I had just gotten my MDP-120 HDTV tuner card in my PC and remember having a heck of a time tuning FOX in Lexington from Keithshire Way area. I had been trying for several weeks to pick up any stable WDKY signal. I got miraculously lucky with the signal that overcast day and enough signal reined into my apartment to allow the signal to lock fairly stable (just in time for Janet Jackson to have a wardrobe malfunction and show us her boob.. HD boob! :) )

LOL ... Well "BoobGate" was a CBS/MTV year, so your memory is partially faulty too. But I'll accept that the WDKY/FOX may well have been the first HD Superbowl in Lex.

I do remember that WDKY ran some brief tests from the new tower site in the week running up to that SB. It was then that I discovered that my previous antenna rigs (that were "fine" for the old low-power site) would be insufficient for the new one. Of course, the new (Clays' Ferry) site is twice as far away from the C.O.L. as the old one. Fortunately, I had a mouldering spare UHF/VHF combo that I could pull out of the mothballs and mount on the roof just in time for the game ... grounding? We don't need no stinking grounding! :D

The RF interference gods must have been taking the day off, because the SB broadcast was nearly flawless ... sadly, WDKY-DT reception has not reached the same level of reliability since.

I feel like I've been filibustered :) Thanks Nightwatchman. I will read your entire post, but dang! are you a retired FCC employee or what?

If you are more than a very short distance outside of stations predicted service contour, regardless of how well you are receiving such station, a nearby WSD (white space device, now known officically at FCC as "TVBD" - TV band devices) could very well(legally) fire up on the same channel and destroy your reception of such signals ....

I've been fussing with people over this for some time. I've written many letters to the talking heads on TV/radio who are falling in line with Google's takeover of our airwaves, but to no avail.

I don't see why they couldn't at least give the contours a "buffer zone." I'm just barely outside the countours of many of the stations I'm targeting. My county (Clay) is within countour, but my exact locality isn't.

My hope is that we'll see it deployed on a county-by-county basis at least. That would give me (and many other rural users) a decent buffer.

LOL ... Well "BoobGate" was a CBS/MTV year, so your memory is partially faulty too. But I'll accept that the WDKY/FOX may well have been the first HD Superbowl in Lex.

The RF interference gods must have been taking the day off, because the SB broadcast was nearly flawless ... sadly, WDKY-DT reception has not reached the same level of reliability since.

You're right. I misremembered. It was the following year (2005) that FOX had the SB. I must have associated it with FOX because it would be like FOX to stretch the boundaries.. though it seems NBC is doing that too (See recent 'Jizz' video from SNL and recent David Patterson SNL weekend update skit).

I do remember it being impossible to pick up WDKY-DT when the transmitter was at the old location and it was moved to the new tower just prior to the Superbowl. It was a frenzy to get a working signal, but I somehow did without a moment to spare. I think I remember a few glitches, but without the proper antenna I was thrilled to have any watchable reception at all in HD.

POST-TRANSITION DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, 47 C.F.R. 73.622(I), SUPERIOR, NEBRASKA. Changed station KSNB-DT's DTV channel from 34 to 4. Proceeding Terminated. (Dkt No. RM-11496, 08-209). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 12/16/2008 by R&O. (DA No. 08-2720).

Just a point of conversation ... can WDKY solidly argue that the FCC is questioning the viability of VHF-lo for DTV while it continues to assign those channels?

Just a point of conversation ... can WDKY solidly argue that the FCC is questioning the viability of VHF-lo for DTV while it continues to assign those channels?

WDKY can and should (have) question(ed) the viability of low VHF in a formerly UHF market. The assignment you are referring is for a station to move back to their soon to be vacated analog position in a market where viewers are accustomed to low VHF reception. Many of them might even own VHF antennas (gasp!)

I made an argument to the Sinclair engineers for a UHF channel, I again made an argument for a full power omni pattern (after I reviewed the channel 46 petition that was submitted without my review), and I passed along many if not all of the comments from the people that post in this room to Sinclair corporate engineers. Why those comments were not included in the petition for channel 31, I can't answer the question. Why didn't I comment directly to the FCC. Fair question but I'll just say ether I know my place or someone has put me in my place, but it was not my place to comment directly.

I just hope I'm the only person watching a DTV low V where their neighbor uses an electric fence. I suppose I could complain to the FCC that he is interfering with my DTV signal, but then again I like where I live and my vehicles currently have fully inflated tires. I would like to keep them that way :)

I will not rehash why I believe channel 4 isn't the best solution for the majority of the viewers in the COL, It's been covered in this thread many times. My argument to abandon the channel 46 petition in favor of a full power omni was based on one thing: Whatever is decided for the final position for WDKY-DT, we will have to live with the outcome for a very long time.

gotta run, I still haven't had a chance to read everything in Nightwatchman's post, but I would bet that he can type faster than me.

WDKY can and should (have) question(ed) the viability of low VHF in a formerly UHF market.

I agree. That is a much stronger argument than attempting a blanket indictment of VHF-lo.

Just a point of conversation ... can WDKY solidly argue that the FCC is questioning the viability of VHF-lo for DTV while it continues to assign those channels?

Pappas is bankrupt and basically told the FCC the stations would not be able to build out full-powered signals on UHF. It says nothing at all about low-VHF and everything about what happens when the bank tries to make engineering decisions.

Note that if Pappas hadn't gone into involuntary bankruptcy and been taken over by its creditors, they would all be on UHF, as elected.

- Trip

I fully understand that the situation in Nebraska is completely different than ours - cheapo ownership, existing VHF user base. However, if FCC truly believed that VHF-lo was untenable, they wouldn't assign it at all, no matter what the stations wanted.

Well, watched 2.5 Men in HD from WDKY-DT tonight. Solid as a Rock as is the usual case when I can decode them (which again is not allways but often from 118 Miles).

VHF antenna is Winegard PR-5030 at 32 Feet above ground (about 833 FT ASL). I'm down in a small, steep, and very forrested valley. There is some nearby terrain obstruction in direction of WDKY(nothing like kycubsfan has to deal with of course), it's part of why the Cincinnati signals(in same direction) are received here via 1edge or 2edge diffraction.


I don't see why they couldn't at least give the contours a "buffer zone."


It's not all that much of one, but They did. it's described in section 15.712 (2) of the new rules. Note : Reformatted the tables in the FCC document for posting below :


2) Required separation distance. Fixed TVBDs and personal/portable TVBDs operating in Mode II must be located outside the contours indicated in paragraph (1) of this section of co-channel and adjacent channel stations by at least the minimum distances specified in the following table. Alternatively, Mode II personal/portable TVBDs may operate at closer separation distances, including inside the contour of adjacent channel stations, provided the power level is reduced as specified in Section 15.709(a)(2).

Antenna Height of Unlicensed Device : Less than 3 meters

Required Separation(km) From Digital or Analog TV (Full Service or Low Power) Protected Contour :

Co-Channel : 6.0km
Adjacent Channel : .01 km

Antenna Height of Unlicensed Device : 3~Less than 10 meters

Required Separation(km) From Digital or Analog TV (Full Service or Low Power) Protected Contour :

Co-Channel : 8.0 km
Adjacent Channel : .1 km

Antenna Height of Unlicensed Device : 10~30 meters

Required Separation(km) From Digital or Analog TV (Full Service or Low Power) Protected Contour :

Co-Channel : 14.4 km
Adjacent Channel : .74 km


The full Rules for the WSD's("TVBD's") adopted in FCC's Nov 4th meeting are in Appendix B, page 98~112 of document at following link :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-260A1.pdf

Section 15.712 beginning on bottom of page 104 provides more details(including add'l information on how cable head ends receiving distant signals will be protected from interference from the WSD's) about "interference protection requirements" for the WSD's.

There is also some discussion of the rules in the WSD thread in technical area here :

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15073311#post15073311


I'm just barely outside the countours of many of the stations I'm targeting.


If the rules end up actually "working"(and I wouldn't count on it for various reasons), then you might be ok, especially if by "barely outside" you mean less than a couple of miles or so ....

I feel like I've been filibustered :) Thanks Nightwatchman.


Not a chance, and you're welcome.

As for the information I posted from FCC documents in that post, which except for all the "nice stuff" I said about You, WDKY and Sinclair is what made it so Long : I stated, in my own words the pertinent facts involved in "short form" at least twice in recent posts in this thread, maybe three times. Instead of doing that again, I instead quoted them "right from the horse's mouth"(and more), as they were relevant to your comments which I quoted(mostly) at very top of post ...

Not a chance, and you're welcome.
So no response on the "retired FCC employee" question... go ahead keep me guessing :)


I'll lay claim to some of the mistakes (again with the disclaimer for those that missed it last time: I do not represent WDKY or Sinclair in here) Some of the pre Clay's Ferry DTV issues were more related to a lack of proper monitoring of the Buena Vista location than anything else (nobody ever borrowed the WDKY splicer) Equipment broke while the focus was on building the new transmitter, and nobody even noticed it. Broadcast engineering isn't what it used to be. It's a very glamorous job. A station like WDKY might have two engineers, and one of them is tasked with keeping the sales, traffic, production, and business computers running. The other changes light bulbs, plunges toilets, sweeps the floors, takes out the trash, and maintains the transmitter.

I believe I was wrong about the first HD Super Bowl. WDKY didn't have the first Super Bowl in Lexington. I did assist with providing the first HD Super Bowl in a city, but in a different city :) I wasn't a Lexington resident until August 2004, so I really don't know much about the digital transition activity at the other stations. Maybe Ben did witness Booby Gate in HD :)


I did work out a solution to bring HD Fox programming to Lexington before the transmitter was relocated, but without proper monitoring it was all for nothing. There was an assumption that nobody was watching Fox from the old location, a visit to this forum could have cleared up the misconception.

I would like to know why Sinclair waited as long as they did to request a move to UHF. Maybe they were waiting for more real world experience with Low-V. I really don't know the answer, but it is dangerous to my well being to assume that someone at Sinclair dropped the ball. I'll stick with they must have had a good reason. I was told that they intended to move to UHF all along, and I'm pretty sure I relayed that info in here many moons ago.

Equipment broke while the focus was on building the new transmitter, and nobody even noticed it.

That loud sound you just heard, was the vein on my forehead popping, followed by my entire head exploding. :mad: :D

Not only did I notice, I tried multiple times to get the powers that be to fix it. I was completely ignored ... possibly because I was probably the only viewer of WDKY-DT at the time ... such is life on the bleeding edge. ;)

But let's be clear on the magnitude of the foul up here. The transmitter was on for at least two months with either a) only null packets being transmitted or b) actual programming being transmitted, but undecodeable due to a PSIP mis-configuration. And before that incident, one or the other input of the splicer was constantly pixelating and/or breaking up into large blocks.

Nobody noticed?????? Reeeeeeeeeeeaaaally? :D

PS: "BoobyGate" was definitely in HD, although, it would have been after the first HD FOX SB. I was so offended I had to keep rewinding the TiVo. ;) :D

PPS: I recall more specifics of the WDKY-DT "Dead Air Event" ... "It" (whatever it was) broke the day after the last game of the World Series ... it remained dead until the AC-less Superbowl broadcast.

So no response on the "retired FCC employee" question... go ahead keep me guessing :)


I have never been employed by FCC.


At no time did Sinclair believe that channel 4 was acceptable.



Maybe they were waiting for more real world experience with Low-V.


Maybe. It could be "Maybe" a lot of things. In any case, in an analog UHF only market, where some have already purchased and installed antennas for lo-VHF reception, and some(or many) have not, with 7 months between the WDKY channel 31 PRM and analog shut off, I think the uncertianity of where they'll end up on the dial, and the timing and the earlier oppurtunities involved for them to get off lo-VHF during channel election and involving the later 7th NPRM proceeding(see below) are of some interest.

In addition to during channel elections, I did neglect to mention there has also been an additional oppurtunity for them to get off "low VHF" between end of Channel elections and earlier this year. See below :



E. Requests for Alternative Channel Assignments
72. We will grant certain stations’ requests for an alternative channel assignment, consistent with our proposal in the Seventh Further Notice. In paragraph 25 of the Seventh Further Notice, the Commission stated that it would consider requests for alternative channel assignments only from the following: (1) licensees unable to construct full, authorized DTV facilities on the TCDs that they requested and received because, in order to avoid causing impermissible interference to other TCDs and still obtain their preferred channel, they had to agree to construct facilities on their TCD that are smaller than those to which they had certified on FCC Form 381; (2) licensees with international coordination issues which the Commission has been unable to resolve with the Canadian and Mexican governments; (3) licensees with TCDs for low-VHF channels (channels 2-6); and (4) new licensees and permittees that attained such status after the start of the channel election process and to which we assigned a TCD for post-transition DTV operations because their assigned NTSC or DTV channel was determined to cause impermissible interference to existing licensees. The Commission stated that licensees that want to change their DTV allotment, but which are not in any of these categories (e.g., are technically able to construct their full, authorized DTV facilities on their existing TCD) may request a change in allotment only after the DTV Table is finalized and must do so through the existing allotment procedures.....

.... 74. We received comments filed on behalf of 22 stations requesting a change in the channel assigned to the station for post-transition operation in the proposed DTV Table. For 13 of these stations, we will grant the requested channel change. A list of the stations for which we are granting an alternative channel appears in Appendix D5, infra, and we have revised the DTV Table for these stations accordingly. For each of these stations, we believe that the circumstances described by the station are consistent with one or more of the criteria for consideration of alternative channel assignments outlined in the Seventh Further Notice. Furthermore, none require waiver of the 0.1 percent interference standard, because they either do not exceed that limit or have acquired the agreement of the affected station(s). .....




I really don't know the answer,


Good answer ...... Thanks for being "interested" in attempting to answer it --- However, please understand I didn't expect to get a straight answer about it -- It would be nice to get the answer, certianly, but I also thought/think merely asking the question(s) I did were also applicable and quite relevant in more of a "rhetorical sense" to those interested in the WDKY channel 31 PRM "issue", if that makes any sense ;) .....


but it is dangerous to my well being to assume that someone at Sinclair dropped the ball.


Would be understandable a mistake might have been made given the timing involved in all this, and all that has been going on with DTV between Early 2005 or so and now ...

However, I really doubt it was because someone dropped the ball as I'm sure there were Sinclair folks who were well aware of WDKY options to get off lo-VHF during channel elections and via the 7th NPRM proceeding as described above ....


I'll stick with they must have had a good reason.


Of that I have no doubt, as it involves their interests.

I suspect(again, just "speculation" of course) it's possible one "good reason" involved might potentially be it wasn't until early THIS year it became apparent broadcasters might actually be able to make $$$$, directly, via actual "wireless"(OTA) TV broadcasting via Mobile DTV and via what we know of know as the soon to come ATSC M/H standard ... I don't know if they're going to be making cell phones which support M/H with 4' long 1/4 wave whip antennas for Low VHF reception, or other similar solutions ...


I was told that they intended to move to UHF all along, and I'm pretty sure I relayed that info in here many moons ago.

Intentions are nice, but there's a difference between "talking the talk" and "Walking the Walk". It is obvious they've wanted off low-VHF all along, including involving the PRM for channel 22 before even the buena vista DTV signal via STA came on air using the antenna pattern that was designed, as was allowed by FCC at the time to serve their COL of Danville, but that also only squirted only a few watts towards portions of Lexington ....

And, there's this little part about them having all sorts of problems(not their fault at all from what I understand) regarding needing a new tower/finding a new tower site, and then finally getting it done and building a very nice facility and spending a bunch of money on it --- including on "stuff" such as channel 4 DTV transmitter in order to serve probably not a great number(and probably a dwindling number) of OTA viewers in Lexington market. Things which make it more difficult to "walk the walk" ..... Meanwhile the channel elections started, and in early 2006, Hard analog shut off date of Feb 17, 2009 was implemented ... "somehow" I just suspect(speculation of course) "walking the walk" may have become just a little easier due to previously mentioned recent developments concerning mobile DTV via ATSC M/H .....


possibly because I was probably the only viewer of WDKY-DT at the time ...


I remember those days .... There was a fellow in Lexington I know of with a VIP-307SR at a decent height which decoded the 1 or 2 watt ERP signal occasionally they squirted in his direction at the time .... Otherwise, You're the only other one I know of ...

PS: "BoobyGate" was definitely in HD, although, it would have been after the first HD FOX SB. I was so offended I had to keep rewinding the TiVo. ;) :D

.

I don't think so. That was Feb 1st 04. CBS carried the "Boobygate" superbowl and it was MY first HD superbowl. I was probably one of the only people in my town to have the superbowl in HD. FOX had not done an HD superbowl yet as they were later in getting HD football going. Up to that point, FOX was still doing "480p widescreen" and wasn't convinced HD made a "difference".

Superbowl 36 on FOX ('02) was in 480p widescreen.
Superbowl 37 was on ABC ('03) in HD.
Superbowl 38 was boobygate ('04) on CBS in HD.

FOX's first HD superbowl was superbowl 39 in '05.

That loud sound you just heard, was the vein on my forehead popping, followed by my entire head exploding.

sorry

I wonder if Sinclair might have gotten some kind of discount or something from the lawyers for filing all three PRMs to move their VHFs to UHFs at the same time. It sounds stupid but I'm at a loss for why they wouldn't have relocated to UHF earlier myself. :D

- Trip

I wonder if Sinclair might have gotten some kind of discount or something from the lawyers for filing all three PRMs to move their VHFs to UHFs at the same time. It sounds stupid but I'm at a loss for why they wouldn't have relocated to UHF earlier myself. :D

- Trip

When has a broadcaster ever received a discount on anything? Maybe they didn't pay list price, but label something "broadcast" and the price goes way up.

16 GB P2 memory card card = $789 (consists of four 4GB SDHC and a pcmcia enclosure) for use in a Panasonic P2 camera

16 GB SDHC = $31

That's the kind of discount broadcasters get :)

Someone, I think Nightwatchman, was after more details about the WDKY-DT antenna. There isn't really any new information here besides what the FCC was supplied long ago(calculated pattern) but you might find the photos interesting. This will only be up for a few days, please get it now :)

http://hdtvky.com/ch4antenna/WDKY_TOC.pdf

I removed drawings that I'm prohibited to share without Dielectric's permission.

I'm sorry if it helps any.

... And now I finally know "the rest of the story." Thanks. :)

I suppose my anger came not from the fact that the signal was off the air, but that I was apparently being ignored and couldn't get in contact with the "right person."

I will say that the operation made a significant turn for the better once Clay's Ferry site was up and running. The recent stealth mode addition of syndicated HD programming (2.5 Men et el) is a sign that "the powers the be" have finally fully embraced HDTV.

OTOH, NiteWatchman's rumblings about mobile DTV are cause for concern ... that's just the type of shiny bobble that might interest Sinclair. As they say, "Stay tuned for further developments." ;)

FOX's first HD superbowl was superbowl 39 in '05.

I'm so confused ... too much caffine ... not enough sleep. :D

Yeah, Boobgate was definitely in HD. I had the transport streams on my harddrive for regular review until that harddrive bit the dust. I couldn't believe what I was seeing when that happened. I was with one other person and we automatically turned to look at each other like an alien spaceship had just landed on the Whitehouse lawn on national TV. To be fair, some of the boob was covered up with that nipple ring thing, so she wasn't entirely exposed. lol It looked like her costume peeled back like that piece was attached with velcro. To this day I still wonder if it was 'meant' to tear away like that. ;)

I was trying wholeheartedly to receive WDKY at the old location in Lexington, but found it impossible to get any blip of DTV signal no matter what I did. I was actually very upset because I was a FOX-o-holic (watched 90% FOX of all my TV watching). I suppose I could have said something instead of being aggravated, but then when I heard about the Clays Ferry tower under construction and William Smith talking about it on here, I had hope and left it at that.

... And now I finally know "the rest of the story." Thanks. :)


I went ahead and removed most of the post because I love my job, but to sum it up there is no excuse for what happened. WDKY screwed up.

Wow. That thing is 66 feet long and weighs 8000 lbs (29,000 lbs with 1 inch of ice). I never realized the scale and it certainly doesn't look that enormous up on the tower.

Is that "elbow" made of copper, brass, or what?

Wow. That thing is 66 feet long and weighs 8000 lbs (29,000 lbs with 1 inch of ice). I never realized the scale and it certainly doesn't look that enormous up on the tower.

Is that "elbow" made of copper, brass, or what?

I try not to make a habit of hanging around when a tower is shedding tons of ice.

Copper with brass flanges. Most of the structural components are brass.

here's a photo with a tower climber near the channel 4 antenna.

127164

This was during the 90 degree rotation of the channel 56 antenna. The channel 4 antenna was "loose" so the gin pole could make it to the top.

Try being under one that is shedding ice...

In 2003, our folks rode out the shedding at WKMR inside a steel shipping container.. I'll try to find the pix..

Someone, I think Nightwatchman, was after more details about the WDKY-DT antenna.


I don't think it was me, but thanks anyway for the info and the Nice pic attached to your later post!

I did ask if the WDKY real world facility matched the info currently on FCC website(relative field values for antenna pattern, ERP/etc) for the folks using that info in their Longely-rice modelling software, because I know the info on FCC site is not allways 100% correct. Also, info on FCC site currently doesn't usually provide any info regarding Antenna's elevation pattern/any Beam tilt involved - not just regarding WDKY, but involving most stations.

In any case, TVfool's prediction of -97dBm (via scatter) for WDKY-DT signal at my location does indeed seem likely to be at least in the ballpark ...


There isn't really any new information here besides what the FCC was supplied long ago(calculated pattern)


Also, Between the time WDKY submitted the channel 4 Clay's Ferry application for CP, and the time the "License to Cover" for the CP for that facility was filed and granted there was a excellent detailed technical exhibit attached to the app which was available for public download via a link in the app itself. It included detailed info on the antenna, including info on the elevation pattern, there were also various diagrams of the new tower/antenna installation plan, as well as detailed contour maps.

I have it archived here somwhere, but I couldn't dig it up with a quick search(I probably used a weird filename, as when you d/l it from FCC, all you get is "getattachment.pdf" or similar) ...

I may have provided a link to it somewhere in this thread back in the 2004 or 2005 timeframe. But, that link is probably dead now because the CP app+attachements involved are no longer available from FCC site because of the way they do things when License to cover is granted --- the CP app in CDBS changes to the license to Cover app when it is filed, and thus the link to the technical exhbits also disappear ...

OTOH, NiteWatchman's rumblings about mobile DTV are cause for concern ... that's just the type of shiny bobble that might interest Sinclair. As they say, "Stay tuned for further developments." ;)

Oh, they're more than just interested ... Try a google search for something like "Sinclair+ATSC M/H" .....

Please don't misunderstand however .... I'm not against Mobile DTV via ATSC's upcoming M/H standard or Sinclair's interest in it. If it's successful, I think it's possible it could end up being a very good thing for OTA DTV. It is unfortunate the bandwidth penalty involved for the additional error correction data involved to increase the robustness/allow for mobile reception, as I understand it, from what little I've read so far, will be higher than would be the case when certian other signal modulation is used to provide Mobile DTV services ....

I am, however, concerned about its potential effect on OTA HD. Not really so much regarding Sinclair stations in the area, most of which are sending 720p and not multicasting, and could probably fit the M/H streams) in the amount of payload currently being used by their null packet streams, thus not effecting the HD quality of the MPEG2 HD video stream ...

I went ahead and removed most of the post because I love my job, but to sum it up there is no excuse for what happened. WDKY screwed up.

Darn ... and I didn't think to save it for future "leverage," either ... :)

Try being under one that is shedding ice...

In 2003, our folks rode out the shedding at WKMR inside a steel shipping container.. I'll try to find the pix..

Ask the WTVQ folks about that one ...

I am, however, concerned about its potential effect on OTA HD.

+1 ... All I can say is that if TV stations want to become mobile phone carriers a/o wireless cable operators ... or whatever the shiny bauble (see I even used the right word this time :) ) d'jour is, then I think the time of the traditional OTA "network" distribution model is past. Witness the incredible ever shrinking "primetime" block.

Darn ... and I didn't think to save it for future "leverage," either ...


What post? I don't see no stinking post :)

I suppose it could have been a PM instead of a post, but I'm glad the event is far enough in the past that I could explain the situation somewhat freely. Once you indicated that you had read it, I had second thoughts about leaving it up....

Also, Between the time WDKY submitted the channel 4 Clay's Ferry application for CP, and the time the "License to Cover" for the CP for that facility was filed and granted there was a excellent detailed technical exhibit attached to the app which was available for public download via a link in the app itself. It included detailed info on the antenna, including info on the elevation pattern, there were also various diagrams of the new tower/antenna installation plan, as well as detailed contour maps.



I would like to have shared the drawings and such but I had to remove everything that Dielectric marked with "This document contains proprietary data of Dielectric Corporation. No disclosure, reproduction, or use of any part thereof may be made except by written permission" I'm sure it was all provided to the FCC and made public. Dang lawyers.

OK, folks ... There's only 6 more days of Festivus 2008. Get your grievances in while there's still time. ;)

way off topic, but I would like to publicly wish my son Eric, currently sleeping in a hole somewhere in Iraq, and my daughter Beth who just arrived at her new station in Korea (yesterday) a very merry Christmas!

What post? I don't see no stinking post :)

I suppose it could have been a PM instead of a post, but I'm glad the event is far enough in the past that I could explain the situation somewhat freely. Once you indicated that you had read it, I had second thoughts about leaving it up....



If the timing was right with check-in on this forum, the forum app could have conceivably emailed your post to forum members. My timing wasn't right and got other email notifications around the same time. Did you say some deep, dark secret or something? ;)

I hope OTA becomes more popular. When should we expect a digital-to-digital cutoff target date (MPG2 -> MPEG4)? :)
If OTA were popular enough networks would want to squeeze out more quality channels in their allotted bandwidth (more advertising dollars could be gotten). Maybe the government wouldn't be so stingy with $40 converter box coupons that I never got and they refuse to re-send (they can't offer proof that the postal service never delivered them.. lost in the black hole where socks in the dryer go I guess)

I hope OTA becomes more popular. When should we expect a digital-to-digital cutoff target date (MPG2 -> MPEG4)? :)

No time soon -- too many MP2 tuners out there... How many years did it take to get color? How bout stereo audio??



Maybe. It could be "Maybe" a lot of things. In any case, in an analog UHF only market, where some have already purchased and installed antennas for lo-VHF reception, and some(or many) have not, with 7 months between the WDKY channel 31 PRM and analog shut off, I think the uncertianity of where they'll end up on the dial, and the timing and the earlier oppurtunities involved for them to get off lo-VHF during channel election and involving the later 7th NPRM proceeding(see below) are of some interest.

In addition to during channel elections, I did neglect to mention there has also been an additional oppurtunity for them to get off "low VHF" between end of Channel elections and earlier this year. See below :--snip--

Reckon "maybe" it's got something to do with the cost of another UHF transmitter, and perhaps the 2nd $10K/mo electric bill (rather than $2k/mo for Low V?) Timing looks pretty convenient to me... *Speculation, of course*

On another note - how many electronic devices will blow up due to power surge on Feb 17???

Merry Christmas everyone.

No time soon -- too many MP2 tuners out there... How many years did it take to get color? How bout stereo audio??


Lol.. it was a joke. Welcome to the forum hornp! :)

DTV stations using ATSC M/H will use MPEG4(H.264/AVC) for the video encoding. M/H will allow broadcasters to broadcast TV programs, including local news/information -probably mostly same sort of stuff they broadcast now, in some cases it will likely be a simulcast, and including "free to air" broadcasts of that programming to mobile/handheld devices ....

Of course, there is also no reason "Fixed" devices which support it(such as for DTV reception in difficult cases), if any are developed, could not be used to receive+decode the M/H streams as well ...

Timing looks pretty convenient to me... *Speculation, of course*


Update: Oh, yes, regardless of whether or not they had tried to get off Lo-VHF during channel elections, 7th NPRM proceeding or as they are doing it now, they would NOT have been able to move the digital to UHF until AFTER analog shut off ... For example, on 31, becuase WKRC-DT 31 is using it, and they won't move to 12 until Feb 18, 2009, because their analog is using 12 until then ..... : End update

It varies a lot depending upon the circumstances involved, but typically, regarding something like a channel change, it usually seems to take several YEARS between the time an application or PRM is filed and, if it is granted by FCC, the time the new facility goes on air ...

HDTV4usinky's comments suggest WDKY can do it much quicker than that. My point here is these things don't happen overnight, even with FCC processing these petitions and applications more quickly than usual in some cases due to the rapidly approaching analog shut off ..

But, keep in mind, FCC may or may not grant the ch 31 petition(Filed just 7 months before analog shut off). If/when they do then they'll have gotten to the "application granted" phase .... They would not of course be likely to order any needed equipment(or scheduling tower work) for the change until/if that happens ...

But, keep in mind, FCC may or may not grant the ch 31 petition(Filed just 7 months before analog shut off). If/when they do then they'll have gotten to the "application granted" phase .... They would not of course be likely to order any needed equipment(or scheduling tower work) for the change until/if that happens ...

I doubt that there are available tower crews or winches and gin poles to be found in February or March due to current schedules, and tower crews don't like to work in ice or rain or wind (typical weather in February and March). Steel gets pretty slippery when wet. I would guess May at the earliest for tower work at WDKY if the petition is granted. I don't know how much transmitter equipment is available "off the shelf" like mask filters and antennas, but I would guess that it would take a couple months to get all the parts. If the petition is granted soon, I would estimate late spring early summer at best before WDKY fires up the UHF transmitter OTA. WDKY might request an STA to utilize the current antenna to come up on UHF earlier. If the petition is approved, fun times are ahead.

I was receiving all the channels upto Dec 08 Now I can no long get 27.1, 27.2, 27.3 and Fox 56. I have an outside antenna. I have been told that I need to purchase new VHF and UHF antennas inorder to receive all the digital stations now and after 2/17/09. I have ran several back to the stores because they do not work. Can someone help me locate a good antenna that will pull in all the digital stations. Also has anyone had experence with an indoor antenna? I understand that Channel 56 changed it location to Clays Ferry. I am outside of Danville KY by 8 miles.:)

Arvil-, It sounds like you might have something blocking VHF signals. Check any splitters/combiners you might have and all of your coax connections.

You'll need at least a VHF/UHF combo antenna, (for now,) and outdoor is definitely preferable.

Edit: This assumes you already have a TV with a digital tuner or converter box for your old analog set. :)

This is all new to me. What type of outdoor antenna will I need to pick up the digital signals? I have lost 56 and CBS on digital. I purchased a couple different antennas and had to run them back because they would not get the signals. I am 8 miles outside of Danville, KY. I hate to give up my CSI shows and Shows like House and Bones.

You say you lost them? What were you using before when you were getting them?

You say you lost them? What were you using before when you were getting them?

Probably analog NTSC ;)

Probably analog NTSC ;)

Nope. He said he was getting the digital channels.

I was receiving all the channels upto Dec 08 Now I can no long get 27.1, 27.2, 27.3 and Fox 56.

Nope. He said he was getting the digital channels.

Oh, my bad

My son in Winchester was picking up 56-1 real good till like 2 months ago ...now he's not ..he's using a walmart Magnavox digital converter

This is all new to me. What type of outdoor antenna will I need to pick up the digital signals? I have lost 56 and CBS on digital. I purchased a couple different antennas and had to run them back because they would not get the signals. I am 8 miles outside of Danville, KY. I hate to give up my CSI shows and Shows like House and Bones.

HDTV4usinky's site at http://hdtvky.com/ has lots of information for starters. There's also a picture of a typical UHF/VHF combo antenna on the first page ... I've seen the one pictured at Lowes in the past and Walmart usually has a similar, RCA branded model in stock as well. Of course there's also Radioshack, but those tend to be a bit overpriced. Another excellent source is for OTA antennas and associated hardware is www.solidsignal.com (http://www.solidsignal.com/)

I have not been able to get WKYT OTA since Saturday morning. I'm not getting a signal at all on any of the 3 channels. Nothing has changed on my end. 18 and 16 still come in fine.

I have not been able to get WKYT OTA since Saturday morning. I'm not getting a signal at all on any of the 3 channels. Nothing has changed on my end. 18 and 16 still come in fine.

1) Try doing a 'rescan' for off air channels. Reason: In switching 27.2 back to 480i, WKYT might have modified their PSIP tables enough to cause your STB (or TV) to drop the channels.

2) If that doesn't work, make sure you don't have any wind damage to the antenna a/o bad coax connections ... Marginal connections tend to go bad during cold weather outbreaks.

Just an FYI, WTVQ-DT has filed to boost power from 370 kW to 635 kW, from the same antenna.

- Trip

Just an FYI, WTVQ-DT has filed to boost power from 370 kW to 635 kW, from the same antenna.

- Trip

Will that effect WLEX-DT channel 39?

Just an FYI, WTVQ-DT has filed to boost power from 370 kW to 635 kW, from the same antenna.

- Trip

Cool.:cool:

Might just make a difference for me. What, 2.5db or so?

Just an FYI, WTVQ-DT has filed to boost power from 370 kW to 635 kW, from the same antenna.

- Trip

I will definitely file comments supporting this one. That might be just enough to get a signal over the ridge.

I don't think there are comment periods for these, only for rulemaking petitions like the WDKY channel change. But I can't see why the FCC would deny it; it meets all the interference criteria according to the filing's own engineering analysis.

I don't think this impacts WLEX-DT in any way. I imagine WLEX-DT is barred from too much of an increase in power due to WKOI-DT in Richmond IN (Cincinnati area). If they have too many issues in terms of signal, I wouldn't be surprised to see them look into moving to a different channel. 39 was never a great choice, just the best choice under the circumstances.

- Trip

Oh, well. The more I think about it, the extra power probably won't do me much good on 40, but it will definitely help people who are currently getting spotty reception, and will move the fringe radius further out.

Like Charles said earlier, it would be fantastic to see WLEX and WTVQ move further down the band. LEX could return to 18, and TVQ could take WKYT's 27.

Of course, my preference would be WLEX on WCPO's old VHF-9 and WTVQ on WATE's old VHF-6. :D

Oh, well. The more I think about it, the extra power probably won't do me much good on 40, but it will definitely help people who are currently getting spotty reception, and will move the fringe radius further out.

Like Charles said earlier, it would be fantastic to see WLEX and WTVQ move further down the band. LEX could return to 18, and TVQ could take WKYT's 27.


I think 18 & 27 would be useless, it would be nice though. WBKI-DT 19 and WLKY-DT 26 would cause problems I am sure :(

Of course, my preference would be WLEX on WCPO's old VHF-9 and WTVQ on WATE's old VHF-6. :D

While I disagree with it on its face, VHF-6 is not possible anyway since there's an FM signal on 88.1 in Lexington.

- Trip

I think 18 & 27 would be useless, it would be nice though. WBKI-DT 19 and WLKY-DT 26 would cause problems I am sure :(

Speaking of WBKI-DT, earlier in this thread I made a comment that they were not operating at full post transition potential. I was wrong, after some early AM spelunking at the FCC site, it appears that they are now working at "full" hight/power. So, it's not likely to get any better for folks in the Lexington/Winchester areas, unless the shutdown of WLEX analog helps any.

OTOH, this does explain why I haven't had to aim directly at the tower site as often this fall.

BTW, I still haven't been able to access anything on the WDKY-DT to ch31 rule making docket ... it's like it's in another dimension. Then again, maybe you just need to know the super-secret password or something

Really?

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov//prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

Go there, then put in Proceeding "08-104" (without the quotes) and search.

- Trip

While I disagree with it on its face, VHF-6 is not possible anyway since there's an FM signal on 88.1 in Lexington.

- Trip

Of course, Radio Free Lexington.

I am mystified as to why WLEX didn't opt to flash-cut on 18. That assignment is miles ahead of what they have now.

Of course, Radio Free Lexington.

I am mystified as to why WLEX didn't opt to flash-cut on 18. That assignment is miles ahead of what they have now.

Didn't WLEX want Ch. 22 a long time ago (back in 2002)? But then realized that WUPX-DT 21 would cause problems.

They didn't want 22, they were assigned 22 by the FCC. They quickly found out they were capped at 50 kW or so due to WUPX-DT, and asked to relocate to channel 39 so as to be able to increase power.

- Trip

Really?
Go there, then put in Proceeding "08-104" (without the quotes) and search.

Ok .. that worked, I was using the CDBS which has no record of it at all.

They didn't want 22, they were assigned 22 by the FCC. They quickly found out they were capped at 50 kW or so due to WUPX-DT, and asked to relocate to channel 39 so as to be able to increase power. ...

... And to share an antenna/tower with WTVQ on ch40.

Documents for the WLEX PRM for 39 (filed in 2000~2001, Granted by FCC in July 2001), and also involving WDKY's comments and counterproposal to substitute channel 22 for channel 4 for WDKY(was found unacceptable for several reasons/in other words was denied by FCC) can be found in ECFS under docket # "01-83".

Here is direct link to the FCC R&O involved for that proceeding (requires PDF reader) :

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512761230

Is it true that all the Lexington locals are now available on Dish in HD EXCEPT for WDKY? and if it is true, is this due to the difficulty Dish is experiencing with reception of VHF channel 4? Someone just e-mailed me to let me know that Dish is telling people that the locals are available in HD except for WDKY. If Dish is having issues receiving WDKY, WDKY is really in trouble with the low-V when it comes to normal viewers with normal antennas.

When lower channels disappear in cold weather check your cable connectors. Center conductor suck out is nearly always the culprit. Leave the stinger a little long when installing an F fitting in the summer. UHF channels can "jump" a gap, VHF, not so much.

Is it true that all the Lexington locals are now available on Dish in HD EXCEPT for WDKY? and if it is true, is this due to the difficulty Dish is experiencing with reception of VHF channel 4? Someone just e-mailed me to let me know that Dish is telling people that the locals are available in HD except for WDKY. If Dish is having issues receiving WDKY, WDKY is really in trouble with the low-V when it comes to normal viewers with normal antennas.

Yeah I got some card in the mail yesterday from some installer company for Dish Network and the card indicated ALL Lexington locals were available in HD. False advertising. Without WDKY, I'm sure there will be alot of pissed off people who go the satellite route and cannot receive FOX-HD (probably after all is installed by this company).

For those interested who haven't seen these, lo-VHF DTV field test results from the original Grand Alliance NC test, and later test involving WKYC Cleveland are summarized in Paragraph #3 and #4 of following article :

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/11510

---------------------------------------

Also, those interested in the various issues which can cause problems for DTV reception on Lo-VHF may also want to check out the paper at link below. Note this also includes some data from various field tests of Lo-VHF DTV reception, including later field tests from 2003 from Chicago and Las Vegas :

http://www.mstv.org/docs/techinfo.pdf

WDKY has tower work scheduled for this afternoon. This will require both the analog and digital transmitters to power down for a brief period

With all the talk of WDKY and their channel 4/31 assignment, I was wondering if the other local channels have made public their decisions on where they will end up after the analog shutoff.

WLEX: 18 or 39?
WKYT: 27 or 13?
WTVQ: 36 or 40?
WKLE: 46 or 42?