I'm not sure if I posted this in the right area. Mods please move if not.

I'm curious about the FCC requirements for low power translator stations. For example, KYOU has a very low power translator K34CW in my town that broadcasts FOX locally. I am not aware of any plans for this tower to go digital, even though the parent station KYOU has been digital for some time. It would be great to get digital and HD programming from KYOU, but that's not currently feasible OTA. Also, because this low power analog signal exists, most residents are not able to get FOX from E* or D*--hence no HD programming from FOX.

Are translator stations exempt from the FCC requirements? Could I expect this translator to go digital or else go away?

The FCC has started issuing channel channels for LPTV, translator and Class A TV stations. Some have changed and some are still waiting to find out what channel the FCC will let them have. As a matter of fact the FCC issued about 125 today alone.

Moved to Reception Hardware forum.

I'm not sure if I posted this in the right area. Mods please move if not.

I'm curious about the FCC requirements for low power translator stations. For example, KYOU has a very low power translator K34CW in my town that broadcasts FOX locally. I am not aware of any plans for this tower to go digital, even though the parent station KYOU has been digital for some time. It would be great to get digital and HD programming from KYOU, but that's not currently feasible OTA. Also, because this low power analog signal exists, most residents are not able to get FOX from E* or D*--hence no HD programming from FOX.

Are translator stations exempt from the FCC requirements? Could I expect this translator to go digital or else go away?

No date yet. But they will be going digital just no idea when. I have talked to LPTV station owners who speculated about carrying full power stations signal low power analog after they have to turn off their full power analog transmitters.

By definition, a translator is just that. It receives a TV station on one channel and translates it to another. When the picked up station goes off the air in 2009, there will be nothing to translate.

As mentioned by others, the FCC has made rules and spectrum available for DTV translators. The old analog units will need to be replaced with new ones. More dumptser material.

Mallego

By definition, a translator is just that. It receives a TV station on one channel and translates it to another. When the picked up station goes off the air in 2009, there will be nothing to translate.

As mentioned by others, the FCC has made rules and spectrum available for DTV translators. The old analog units will need to be replaced with new ones. More dumptser material.

Mallego

A translator is a translator but is only a letter, snail mail, away from being a LPTV station. And an LPTV station can go on doing analog until the FCC tells them they have to switch.

I don't think there is enough spectrum for the FCC to have allocated an additional 6 MHz for every translator there is.

And no fear no worry 8-VSB can do on channel repeating and Single Frequency Networks as good as any modulation right? So there is no need for translators and all that wasted spectrum. All they have to do is broadcast on channel in the digital world.

That will leave all that now wasted translator spectrum for those "white space" smart radios. Or on the other hand maybe someone will right some letters and they will live on in analog as LPTV stations for some indefinite period.

The FCC told me that they would have the rules for digital LPTV by Christmas of 1999. Things take time.

The FCC has started issuing channel channels for LPTV, translator and Class A TV stations. Some have changed and some are still waiting to find out what channel the FCC will let them have. As a matter of fact the FCC issued about 125 today alone.

Several viewers wet their pants in Logan, yesterday (5 new CP's issued).

We have 440 CP's for LD's in Utah. A few hundred more to go.

Thus far, there are nearly 2,000 DTV stations duplicating their NTSC counterpart.
Until Feb2009, there simply aren't enough open channels to accommodate all LP and Translator stations,
although they are allowed to try to squeeze 'em in.....

FCC established requirement for all LP and Translator stations to go digital but have not established an end date.

Thus far, there are nearly 2,000 DTV stations duplicating their NTSC counterpart.
Until Feb2009, there simply aren't enough open channels to accommodate all LP and Translator stations,
although they are allowed to try to squeeze 'em in.....

FCC established requirement for all LP and Translator stations to go digital but have not established an end date.

With reasons, lots of them. They don't have the money for one. Broadcasters have to switch to digital for their main station so that they can keep their license and by doing so keep their must carry on cable priveleges.

Not so with translators. A high percentage of broadcasters would have a problem justifying keeping their main transmitters on with the low number of digital households if it were not for must carry being tied to their OTA broadcast license. How can they possibly justify keeping their translators on when they are already a loss item?

Then you have all the non broadcast station owned translators. Where do they find the money? Maybe a translator covers a thousand households and maybe 150 are over the air viewers. How many are digital, 2 or 3? How many will be digital after the transition, 10? How are these 10 going to pay for a translator conversion to digital? Their community translator is going to stay analog for awhile. But how will they get the money to translate from digital to analog? That is translate the digital signal from the now full power broadcaster to their still analog translator. I don't know. I think they go dark.

What about the period after the transition when most translators will still be analog, there is no date for them to switch yet? What percentage of that 150 analog over the air customers of the translator will be wooed away to cable and satellite? How many will go digital cable and satellite during this transition process where there will be a lot of talk about digital, a lot of promotions etc. and at the same time a question about just when their local translators will go digital,l if they will go digital or where the money is to convert the digital signals while staying analog?

All this uncertainty will lower the number of people who will remain as customers for translators and hence the argument against spending money that doesn't exist to upgrade them to digital.

Good article that is far too optimistic IMO

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198500398

It is a circular argument. Fewer viewers make it harder to justify doing anything. Then there is the problem that in many cases, very many cases, you don't even have the spectrum to allow translators to simulcast in analog and digital till the transition so they will have to flash cut to digital which will be problematic and confusing to those few who depend on translators.

Most likely this problem will just acccentuate the whole OTA disaster and some enterprising new Congresscritter is going to notice that few citizens (voters) are using OTA at all after the transition not just in translator covered areas.

He may suggest that all the spectrum should be sold for other more useful purposes. Especially after the auctions of 2008 of channels 51 and above bring in billions.

Transition converter box disaster + translator disaster + interference disaster with lots of finger pointing + 600 full power stations trying to change their digital channels overnight + digital transition disaster + comparison to China's digital HDTV Olympics and other countries digital transitions as they are in early 2009 + lots of new young freshman Democratic Congresscritters in early 2009 as the disaster unfolds with no embarrassing connections to the source of this disaster + a new Democratic President with no connection to this disaster and a lot of connections to those whom the transition will disenfranchise from the use of their citizen owned TV spectrum + lots of reporters on the case + lots of publicity + a little digging to see what the real numbers are for those really using, depending on OTA after the transition + big bucks from Auction #31 in early 2008 = reconsideration of OTA broadcasting on channels below 51.

Going to be interesting. Maybe broadcasters should have been paying more attention to their OTA spectrum back when the CEA companies were ramming through their 8-VSB and MPEG2 so that there would be no delay in the transition.

What we got was one horrendous delay of nine years so far and counting.

More to the point where were our vaunted US broadcast engineers during the creation of our US DTV transition? Were they all cowering in the transmitter dungeon room? Are there any real engineers left in our broadcast industry or is everyone a bean counter or a lawyer that may not even be aware that their company broadcast over the air a signal that could be received on an antenna.

Yup, it's a big Catch-22.

One point: seems it shouldn't be too expensive to upgrade a translator to receive ATSC (vice current NTSC),
convert it and continue NTSC rebroadcast. Just hookup an inexpensive OTA STB (EBay?) to their current
RX antenna and connect composite video to current NTSC transmitter....might need to extract 4:3 first....

Big expense will be upgrading to transmit ATSC....

Yup, it's a big Catch-22.

One point: seems it shouldn't be too expensive to upgrade a translator to receive ATSC (vice current NTSC),
convert it and continue NTSC rebroadcast. Just hookup an inexpensive OTA STB (EBay?) to their current
RX antenna and connect composite video to current NTSC transmitter....might need to extract 4:3 first....

Big expense will be upgrading to transmit ATSC....

Good point, they whoever they are, could do that.

With reasons, lots of them. They don't have the money for one. Broadcasters have to switch to digital for their main station so that they can keep their license and by doing so keep their must carry on cable priveleges.

Not so with translators. A high percentage of broadcasters would have a problem justifying keeping their main transmitters on with the low number of digital households if it were not for must carry being tied to their OTA broadcast license. How can they possibly justify keeping their translators on when they are already a loss item?

Then you have all the non broadcast station owned translators. Where do they find the money? Maybe a translator covers a thousand households and maybe 150 are over the air viewers. How many are digital, 2 or 3? How many will be digital after the transition, 10? How are these 10 going to pay for a translator conversion to digital? Their community translator is going to stay analog for awhile. But how will they get the money to translate from digital to analog? That is translate the digital signal from the now full power broadcaster to their still analog translator. I don't know. I think they go dark.

What about the period after the transition when most translators will still be analog, there is no date for them to switch yet? What percentage of that 150 analog over the air customers of the translator will be wooed away to cable and satellite? How many will go digital cable and satellite during this transition process where there will be a lot of talk about digital, a lot of promotions etc. and at the same time a question about just when their local translators will go digital,l if they will go digital or where the money is to convert the digital signals while staying analog?

All this uncertainty will lower the number of people who will remain as customers for translators and hence the argument against spending money that doesn't exist to upgrade them to digital.

Good article that is far too optimistic IMO

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198500398

It is a circular argument. Fewer viewers make it harder to justify doing anything. Then there is the problem that in many cases, very many cases, you don't even have the spectrum to allow translators to simulcast in analog and digital till the transition so they will have to flash cut to digital which will be problematic and confusing to those few who depend on translators.

Most likely this problem will just acccentuate the whole OTA disaster and some enterprising new Congresscritter is going to notice that few citizens (voters) are using OTA at all after the transition not just in translator covered areas.

He may suggest that all the spectrum should be sold for other more useful purposes. Especially after the auctions of 2008 of channels 51 and above bring in billions.

Transition converter box disaster + translator disaster + interference disaster with lots of finger pointing + 600 full power stations trying to change their digital channels overnight + digital transition disaster + comparison to China's digital HDTV Olympics and other countries digital transitions as they are in early 2009 + lots of new young freshman Democratic Congresscritters in early 2009 as the disaster unfolds with no embarrassing connections to the source of this disaster + a new Democratic President with no connection to this disaster and a lot of connections to those whom the transition will disenfranchise from the use of their citizen owned TV spectrum + lots of reporters on the case + lots of publicity + a little digging to see what the real numbers are for those really using, depending on OTA after the transition + big bucks from Auction #31 in early 2008 = reconsideration of OTA broadcasting on channels below 51.

Going to be interesting. Maybe broadcasters should have been paying more attention to their OTA spectrum back when the CEA companies were ramming through their 8-VSB and MPEG2 so that there would be no delay in the transition.

What we got was one horrendous delay of nine years so far and counting.

More to the point where were our vaunted US broadcast engineers during the creation of our US DTV transition? Were they all cowering in the transmitter dungeon room? Are there any real engineers left in our broadcast industry or is everyone a bean counter or a lawyer that may not even be aware that their company broadcast over the air a signal that could be received on an antenna.


Tick tick tick . . . :rolleyes: