Trip in Va, do you have a list of open UHF channels in each market? Wonder which VHfs have any possiblity to go to UHF now?

In my listings, click the (S) next to the station coordinates and it'll take you to an available channel search for that station's coordinates. Now just because a channel is listed as available is no guarantee, but it's a starting point.

I've actually made myself a list of potential channel moves but I'm 100% sure I've made multiple mistakes, so I'm not posting it.

- Trip

For those who haven't heard, one of the more famous voices and ham radio ops has left us for the great beyond in the ether.

KB2GSD ... SK (silent key for those who arent hams)
Walter Cronkite has died at the age of 92.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-walter-cronkite18-2009jul18,0,4276121.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/arts/television/18appraisal.html?hpw

Always thought he should have gotten W2CBS as vanity...He MADE CBS!!!

73-Walt!!

Ironic he passes on the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11's launch to the moon, which I think everyone was watching his coverage of it (I KNOW I was...I remember my dad using our Super 8 camera to record OFF the TV screen..It worked!! Somewhere, I need to transfer it to DVD or VHS someday)
Though NBC's nightly news ratings were higher (with Huntley and Brinkley), Cronkite was THE man, especially during the moon flights.

On a personal note, I cried when I read the email about his passing...reminds me of days gone past (the good ole days), friends long gone, an era where you COULD trust most people, and most importantly, my own mortality. SAD thing is look where we HAVEN'T been or done in 40 years since Apollo.....oh
well! :(

I hope the moderators may put the links up on the main page with a note about Walter's death. He and Paul Harvey on the radio; there shall never be anyone else like them!

Walter Cronkite, is one the best news newscaster of our time, and sadly to say we don't get the high quality of news broadcasting nowdays.....:(

Here's the link's for those did not know he was a ham radio OPS, KB2GSD-SK..:(

http://www.arrl.org/

73's, Walter Cronkite thanks for the great job for broadcasting the great news of our time!!!:)

7-18-09

Somehow, nitpicking about the local Fox affiliate's VHF troubles, and not expecting any satisfactory resolution (sorry, I'll believe it when I see it), seems minor compared to the loss of Walter Cronkite.

But, oddly enough, that station was the longtime CBS affiiate, where Walter was seen for his entire career.

The current CBS affiliate here is the other station with VHF problems in this market.

Latest from the VHF file:

KTVT and KTXA want to return to the pre-transition situation where both were on UHF under STA. Fun stuff here. They are preparing a petition to return KTVT to 19, and will relocate KTXA to a yet-to-be-determined UHF channel.

KMGH wants to boost to 54 kW, but it's not stated that it's a response to VHF problems. I won't be listing it on the VHF Nightmares page.

KRCR has supplemented their application. They don't expect their power boost to fix the problem.

- Trip

Low-band FCC note:

The FCC issued a notice today (.pdf (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-60A1.pdf)) seeking comment on interference rules for broadband over power lines (BPL).

Based on the notice, it does NOT appear the FCC will reconsider an earlier decision to allow BPL to operate in a wide swath of bandwidth ranging from 1.7 MHz to 80 MHz -- a range which includes TV channels 2 through 5. The commission WILL, however, reconsider its method for measuring BPL emissions, and it will release staff studies which had previously been redacted.

The commission issued today's notice in response to an appeals court decision in a lawsuit by amateur radio operators, who could also be affected by BPL.

"The court stated that the Commission failed to satisfy the notice and comment requirements of the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] by redacting staff studies on which it relied in promulgating the rule and by failing to make a reasoned explanation for its choice of the extrapolation factor for measuring Access BPL emissions," the commission wrote. "Accordingly, the court directed that, on remand, the Commission make the unredacted staff studies part of the rulemaking record and provide an opportunity for notice and comment."

I just returned from a 7,375 mile driving trip across the country checking out various National Parks and other sites of interest, along with visiting friends and relatives. I thought you might be interested in my observations of "TV Across America" at friend's and relative's homes, at motels, hotels, restaurants, etc., and from my laptop tuner.

Overall, most of America is still watching SD. While some of my friends and relatives have nice wide screen TVs with HD, most are still watching 4:3 TVs with analog cable feeds. Most hotels and motels still have 4:3 TVs.

One friend with a nice wide screen DLP set that has just an analog tuner was using a converter box. I found that his DVD player had a digital tuner in it and a quick scan brought in 8 digital stations, many with HD. We had some happy campers in that home!

My sister and brother-in-law in New Mexico have a nice Sony Bravia wide screen but have to watch analog on all but one or two channels. They can receive KOAT-7, and occasionally KRQE-13, in digital, but none of the UHF stations are strong enough to produce a picture... and they have a good antenna, too. They're just too far away, at about 100 miles, to get a signal. They have to rely on local analog translators for service. Two of the translators have CPs for digital, but they aren't on the air yet.

Most hotel and motels still have 4:3 analog TVs, some with satellite feeds, most with local cable feeds. Those that do have wide screen TVs don't provide any HD signals to them, just the basic analog signals from cable. The TVs are set to stretched mode and there's no way to adjust them with the remote provided. It's ugly! (There was one exception where a "Menu" button was available.) In most cases, you see the programs with the sides chopped off of HD programs. In Cortez, Colorado, however, the cable system gives you the full HD picture, shrunk to fit 4:3. Everyone is skinny! That, to me, looked worse than stretched SD on the wide screen TVs.

I found that most people prefer stretched pictures on their wide screen TVs rather than having the bars on the side. Most with wide screen TVs have them set up so that the stations with SD pictures are stretched to full screen. Are fat people on TV the new norm? We're fat enough as it is... we don't need our TVs making us even fatter! :)

Many hotels and motels had nice wide screen TVs in the lobby but had stretched SD programming on them. Whether or not they had HD available, I don't know. I think a lot of people don't know that they have HD available on their cable systems. They're so used to tuning to 7 for channel 7, they don't know about tuning to 707, for example, to get the HD signal.

Quite a few restaurants and bars had large HDTV's with beautiful HD pictures. One restaurant/bar in downtown Chicago had four very large plasmas that looked fantastic!

Besides checking the sets in the hotel and motel rooms and at our friend's and relative's homes, I had my laptop with the Dvico USB tuner with me and a collapsible whip magnetic-mount antenna. I had great results in most places where we stopped. Even in some of the more remote locations we visited, I found digital signals! I was quite amazed at the reception I received.

(Sorry, Trip... I didn't take the time to save readings from my TSReader.)

Without a doubt, UHF works best locally, but over the long haul VHF works best. In areas where there were both VHF and UHF digital stations, I was able to receive the UHF stations much easier than the VHF stations if I was near the transmitter sites, but when I was some distance away, the VHF stations did better than the UHF. (I think most of you have determined that already, though.) I was able to pick up stations that were as far as 75 miles away with just the whip antenna. Sometimes it took some fiddling with the antenna to find the right length and the right spot, but I got as much as 20 dB SNR on many stations that were over 40 miles away.

Two really bright spots for reception were upper Michigan where I got the Traverse City stations from 55 miles away and in Mt. Vernon, Illinois, where I was able to receive several of the St. Louis stations from about 75 miles away.

Many cities out in the boonies have digital translators working already, which surprised me. In Delta, Utah, I received 11 digital translators for stations in Salt Lake City. Many have a mix of digital and analog. There are still many cities, however, with mostly analog translators and no or little HDTV available.

There are still lots of low power stations and translators on the air. There wasn't a place where I didn't get at least two analog stations, except for the one town in Idaho where I got absolutely nothing, digital or analog.

That's my summary. Any surprises in there for anyone?

Larry
SF

(Sorry, Trip... I didn't take the time to save readings from my TSReader.)

Rats!

Had you advised me and warned me of time constraints, I'd have asked for only selected stations and places... :D

- Trip

I found that most people prefer stretched pictures on their wide screen TVs rather than having the bars on the side.

yeah I have a friend that watches TV on is 65 IN that way. I don't get it. I think it looks like crap. I'm not sure why they think they are "missing" something if there are black bars. I always watch a show in the format is was supposed to be in. Just like people with 4:3 TVs that only watch fullscreen movies instead of widescreen because of the black bars on the top and bottom. I've heard people say they prefer fullscreen because they think they are missing something and the ironic part is it's the fullscreen version which is cutting up to 40% of the picture out.


Two really bright spots for reception were upper Michigan where I got the Traverse City stations from 55 miles away


Technically that's not upper Mich since it's in the LP. I'll be in the UP later this week around Baraga. Now that's upper Mich. Everything I can dig up says the OTA around there is slim to none. We'll see.

Overall, most of America is still watching SD. While some of my friends and relatives have nice wide screen TVs with HD, most are still watching 4:3 TVs with analog cable feeds. Most hotels and motels still have 4:3 TVs.

One friend with a nice wide screen DLP set that has just an analog tuner was using a converter box. I found that his DVD player had a digital tuner in it and a quick scan brought in 8 digital stations, many with HD. We had some happy campers in that home!

Someone on AVS used to call it, "America's transition to analog pay cable."

I know we have talked about this before, but the number of people buying HD sets and still watching analog cable is disappointing. Most probably don't even think to try hooking up antenna!

Thank you for your report.

Well, the KTVT/KTXA petition is in, but we won't know which channel KTXA wants until morning. That info is not in the CDBS Public Access for whatever reason.

- Trip

?
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/prefill_and_display.pl?Application_id=1321282&Service=DS&Form_id=911&Facility_id=51517

7.1. Channel:
18

Was in there last night too. Am I missing something?

?
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/prefill_and_display.pl?Application_id=1321282&Service=DS&Form_id=911&Facility_id=51517

7.1. Channel:
18

Was in there last night too. Am I missing something?

Read the paperwork. Specifically, "Circumstances Warranting STA." They're lighting up 18 in the short term, but due to spacing with KYTX, can't keep it in the long term.

They want channel 29.

- Trip

It might be a little clearer why WABI Bangor , MA is asking to move FROM UHF to VHF high band. This from this weeks, NorthEast Radio Watch by Scott Fybush:

*There's TV news from MAINE, too - and a reminder that for all the absolute opinions you'll read declaring that UHF is always superior to VHF for digital TV, the experience in the real world varies greatly from market to market. In the sprawling Bangor market, where many viewers in outlying areas already have good rooftop VHF antennas and where there was never any significant UHF analog broadcasting, WABI-TV (Channel 5) is hoping to move its digital signal from UHF back to VHF. WABI is asking the FCC to reallocate it to channel 13, where its says it can be more competitive with the market's other VHF digital signals - and where its power bills will be significantly lower than on its present channel 19 facility.

http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html

And yet I've gotten e-mails from people in the Bangor area who get WABI and nothing else (even WLBZ on their current UHF signal). Some of them got WVII and lost it when they moved from 14 to 7. They can't see WMEB, an upper-VHF from the same tower site. They're hoping WABI is forced to stay on UHF.

- Trip

I've heard people say they prefer fullscreen because they think they are missing something and the ironic part is it's the fullscreen version which is cutting up to 40% of the picture out.
Don't be so sure about that.

"Widescreen" movies on HBO-HD are often cropped at the top and bottom, so that it's actually the SD fullscreen version that has the more inclusive picture.

And yet I've gotten e-mails from people in the Bangor area who get WABI and nothing else (even WLBZ on their current UHF signal). Some of them got WVII and lost it when they moved from 14 to 7. They can't see WMEB, an upper-VHF from the same tower site. They're hoping WABI is forced to stay on UHF.

- Trip

What is more surprising is that I have seen no movement on WLBZ as respects 2 at 3kW. No additional power request, no request for a new channel. Have they buried their heads in the sand? Do they really want to go back to 2?

Bangor, ME and Maine in general, is a mess of non-co-located stations as well.

WLBZ responded to me. I won't quote them directly, but they will be moving to 2 around Labor Day and will be taking the wait and see approach.

Apparently, the computer models say 3kW DTV will more than replicate the former 51kW analog signal.

Haven't we have read this story before?

Those computer models that seem to assume a 10-dbi outdoor antenna at 30' HAGL ?

WLBZ ought to be reading the real-world experiences of fellow low-VHF DTV stations that have already hit the air. KCWX-DT-5 here puts in a better signal than expected with its 23-kw at c. 50 miles (with 20' AGL ant here), but still wants 82-kw. Recent thunderstorm activity has proven how easily lightning causes macropixelations and/or dropouts on their freq.

I wonder if they are looking at the FCC maps. Here is the one for Bangor, ME:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_current/Bangor_ME.pdf

Note that the 3kW DTV facility for WLBZ (page 4) is showing green or no-change vs. 51.3kW analog.

Did these old maps assume 1/20 for VHF > VHF replication?

Those computer models that seem to assume a 10-dbi outdoor antenna at 30' HAGL ? ....

Technically, the FCC's model specifies a 4 dBd antenna for channels 2-6, a 6 dBd antenna for VHF 7-13, and a 10 dBd antenna for UHF. All are to be mounted outdoors at 30'AGL.

Refer to the FCC's OET Bulletin 69 for the rest of the details.

Technically, the FCC's model specifies a 4 dBd antenna for channels 2-6, a 6 dBd antenna for VHF 7-13, and a 10 dBd antenna for UHF. All are to be mounted outdoors at 30'AGL.

Refer to the FCC's OET Bulletin 69 for the rest of the details.

That truly reflects a reality in an urban location!

This is a clear reflection of the Commission having no touch with the real world.

The sheer idiocy of the transition!

Three more for the VHF file, all want more power rather than different channels:

KTUL wants to go from 6.9 kW to 9.46 kW on the current antenna using existing equipment, until the omni and 15 kW can go on the air.

KOMU wants to boost from 13.6 kW to 17.3 kW.

KFJX wants to boost from 4.5 kW to 5.6 kW.

- Trip

That truly reflects a reality in an urban location!

This is a clear reflection of the Commission having no touch with the real world.

The sheer idiocy of the transition!

Back in the 1960s and 1970's, it did. You have to have a standard. And the FCC said you'd get reception if you met these conditions.

Outside of apartment dwellers, and those in homeowners associations who are evil and won't allow TV antennas, and thosse shielded by mountains...there's no excuse not to have good reception in the transition.

Back in the 1960s and 1970's, it did. You have to have a standard. And the FCC said you'd get reception if you met these conditions.

Outside of apartment dwellers, and those in homeowners associations who are evil and won't allow TV antennas, and thosse shielded by mountains...there's no excuse not to have good reception in the transition.

Scratch the homeowners in evil associations. - there is NO EXCUSE

Scratch the homeowners in evil associations. - there is NO EXCUSE

Not everyone owns their own roof, even if they are paying property taxes.

An NPRM has been issued for the KWCH/KSCW channel swap.

- Trip

Trip,

Have you heard anything new on WCYB's application to increase power yet? They are coming in a lot better over the last day or so (i.e. I can actually get them during daylight hours) and was wondering if they had increased power or is weather/tropo causing the better reception.

That truly reflects a reality in an urban location!

This is a clear reflection of the Commission having no touch with the real world.

The sheer idiocy of the transition!

It reflects the reality of what is necessary to perform a mathematical or statistical model to create a baseline for signal level expectations in order to predict signal coverage.

The rest of the ranting isn't needed and certainly isn't productive.

"The rest of the ranting isn't needed and certainly isn't productive."

If you think that is ranting, you should hear some others!

What isn't productive is a government agency that truly made some very bad errors in employing their "models to create a baseline" and apologists for ineptitude.

Unfortunately, tens of thousands of citizens have lost their ability to receive programming that they enjoyed before the transition. Don't be so quick to judge without having to live through the frustration!

Trip,

Have you heard anything new on WCYB's application to increase power yet? They are coming in a lot better over the last day or so (i.e. I can actually get them during daylight hours) and was wondering if they had increased power or is weather/tropo causing the better reception.

It looks like the STA was approved on July 15.

- Trip

"The rest of the ranting isn't needed and certainly isn't productive."

If you think that is ranting, you should hear some others!

What isn't productive is a government agency that truly made some very bad errors in employing their "models to create a baseline" and apologists for ineptitude.

Unfortunately, tens of thousands of citizens have lost their ability to receive programming that they enjoyed before the transition. Don't be so quick to judge without having to live through the frustration!
And they only had 10 years and 50 states available to test out the theories in the real world. To go this long and then find out you have a major problem is unconscionable!

Not everyone owns their own roof, even if they are paying property taxes.

You missed the point (and Ive never seen someone pay taxes and NOT own the roof!!) If they pay taxes, they have title to the property and can put anything up for OTA reception.

Even in apartments or condos (AHH that might be your exception), you can put an outside antenna IF you have an exclusive area like balcony or similar. (IE: Not a common area)...I did so in an apartment in Dallas 10 yrs ago...noone ever said a word...had the OTARD notification taped to the mast in plastic...guess it was the scarecrow..

Only two exceptions I know of can keep you from putting an antenna or dish on property: Historical property and.......maybe the condos...that doesnt seem like it was the other one mentioned in the OTARD rules though; oh wait for safety reason was the other!

HOAs cannot stop you period....they can limit you but cant stop you...
The Nazis have met their match.

Even in apartments or condos (AHH that might be your exception), you can put an outside antenna IF you have an exclusive area like balcony or similar. (IE: Not a common area)...


As a condo owner, I technically only own the property from the paint in. However, I have 4 antennas in my attic. If they ever raise a fuss about that, I will use the exclusive access provision. An antenna on my ground level patio wouldn't be very effective.

DTS application from WXTV and WPXN, who both want a secondary 10 kW transmitter in Brooklyn. (Though not filed, WCBS and WNBC will also be on DTS from that site, as referenced in WPXN's paperwork.) Maybe buildings are killing the signal?

From the VHF file, Raycom is moving to fix things it looks like.

KPLC-7 requests 62 kW.

KCBD-11 requests 41 kW.

This following WLOX's earlier move to 39, and word that WWBT was hoping to announce a fix some time this week. Nothing on that yet, though.

- Trip

You missed the point (and Ive never seen someone pay taxes and NOT own the roof!!)
HOAs cannot stop you period....they can limit you but cant stop you...
The Nazis have met their match.

And now you have. Many new ones are going that route. They do this: we'll take care of the roof if we own it. The HO is happy because he doesn't have to deal with it. But then, they don't allow antennas, except for D* and E*.

Welcome to our world...

KBCI's request for 9 at 25kW has advanced to the next step.

POST-TRANSITION DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 73.622(I), BOISE, IDAHO. Proposed substitution of DTV channel 9 for post-transition DTV channel 28 for Station KBCI-DT. (Dkt No. RM-11537 09-96 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division,Media Bureau. Adopted: 07/22/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1579).

Considering KTVB's problems, this would not seem to be a good idea.

Also, I have not seen confirmation that KBCI increased the ERP on 28 to 660kW yet. I still have them at 89kW.

I know we have talked about this before, but the number of people buying HD sets and still watching analog cable is disappointing. Most probably don't even think to try hooking up antenna!
A couple of years ago, my 32" analog Sony TV went kaput, and while waiting for the repair shops to open, I browsed the websites of electronics stores to see how much I would have to spend for a decent-sized digital TV. My plan was to use it with my existing analog services (cable and DirecTV) until I could afford to upgrade to digital services.

Do you think that's why other people have HD sets but are still subscribing to digital services? They had to buy a new TV but weren't ready to make the full switch to digital?


Patty

p.s. I found a small repair company run by an ex-Sony technician. He was able to fix the TV, which has been fine since!

Someone on AVS used to call it, "America's transition to analog pay cable."

I know we have talked about this before, but the number of people buying HD sets and still watching analog cable is disappointing. Most probably don't even think to try hooking up antenna!

Thank you for your report.

The funnier thing is, with many most modern digital TV sets and cable companies if they just plug the TV into the cable and do a scan they can probably get the broadcast HD network channels via unencrypted QAM anyway, without any HD subscription or digital TV box. So they don't really need the antenna for HD. Yet so many still watch the analog versions of the network cable channels because they just haven't found the other ones.

- Tom

The funnier thing is, with many most modern digital TV sets and cable companies if they just plug the TV into the cable and do a scan they can probably get the broadcast HD network channels via unencrypted QAM anyway, without any HD subscription or digital TV box. So they don't really need the antenna for HD. Yet so many still watch the analog versions of the network cable channels because they just haven't found the other ones.

- Tom

Very true---my good friend recently purchased a 56 inch plasma, but he only has Time Warner analog cable. I told him he would be able to get HD over the air (indoor antenna) or through TW at no cost, but he wasn't interested. Finally, I took an indoor antenna to his house and practically forced him to rescan--we picked up 9 of 10 locals perfectly in HD. We then reconnected the cable and rescanned for QAMs.--We picked up all locals in HD as well as 7 or 8 cable HD channels ( which should be encoded), plus as all the subchannels carried by TW. My friend acknowledged how fantastic the picture was, but said he doubted he'd mess with it since he wouldn't be able to remember the HD channel numbers. I know, absolutely crazy, considering the new TV probably set him back at least $2000.

My friend acknowledged how fantastic the picture was, but said he doubted he'd mess with it since he wouldn't be able to remember the HD channel numbers. I know, absolutely crazy, considering the new TV probably set him back at least $2000.
That's like buying a Ferrari and only driving it through school zones.

The funnier thing is, with many most modern digital TV sets and cable companies if they just plug the TV into the cable and do a scan they can probably get the broadcast HD network channels via unencrypted QAM anyway, without any HD subscription or digital TV box. So they don't really need the antenna for HD. Yet so many still watch the analog versions of the network cable channels because they just haven't found the other ones.

- Tom
Doesn't help that the limited number of providers that do include PSIP data do a half-assed job of it. A good number of them are inconsistent from channel to channel in how the remap is configured. For example, Cox in Phoenix has most of the channels remap to their OTA equivalent, e.g. Fox on 10.1. However, the local independent remaps to 0.703. PBS HD is on 8.1, Create is on 8.2, but the World subchannel found on 8.3 OTA is on 0.88 on cable. The FCC has requirements that some cable systems must incude PSIP, but those requirements don't seem to be enforced, much less cover exactly how the channels are remapped.

That's like buying a Ferrari and only driving it through school zones.

ROFL... HAHA that was a great analogy! :)

Just one for the VHF file this time around.

WCPO wants to boost power from 19 kW to 28 kW.

- Trip

KTVT/KTXA have advanced to the next step:

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, FORT WORTH, TEXAS. Proposed channel substitution for stations KTVT(DT), from channel 11 to 19, and KTXA-DT, from channel 19 to 29. (Dkt No. 09-132 RM-11550 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 07/21/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1595).

KTVT/KTXA have advanced to the next step:

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, FORT WORTH, TEXAS. Proposed channel substitution for stations KTVT(DT), from channel 11 to 19, and KTXA-DT, from channel 19 to 29. (Dkt No. 09-132 RM-11550 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 07/21/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1595).

For a second there I though you put KTTV going from 11 to 19. I keep dreaming that KABC 7 and KTTV 11 would move back to UHF (LA market).

For a second there I though you put KTTV going from 11 to 19. I keep dreaming that KABC 7 and KTTV 11 would move back to UHF (LA market).

Considering that none of the LA analog LP stations above 51 have moved yet, I'm wondering if anything new is even happening in 52-69, other than FLO, which isn't new. Most of the auctioned channels aren't being used (yet) despite the need for more UHF TV channels, as best as I can tell.

Considering that none of the LA analog LP stations above 51 have moved yet, I'm wondering if anything new is even happening in 52-69, other than FLO, which isn't new. Most of the auctioned channels aren't being used (yet) despite the need for more UHF TV channels, as best as I can tell.


Yeah. I am still surprised I get channel 67 (HSN). I think I would rather have KTTV or KABC digital on UHF 67.

Considering that none of the LA analog LP stations above 51 have moved yet, I'm wondering if anything new is even happening in 52-69, other than FLO, which isn't new. Most of the auctioned channels aren't being used (yet) despite the need for more UHF TV channels, as best as I can tell.
IMHO taking away 18 UHF channels from TV was more about politics than reality. Either 52 - 55 should of have been kept for TV or Land Mobile should be removed from channels 16 - 20.

IMHO taking away 18 UHF channels from TV was more about politics than reality. Either 52 - 55 should of have been kept for TV or Land Mobile should be removed from channels 16 - 20.I believe it was originally about deficit reduction, too, as well as paying for the converter box coupon program.

I agree that they may have taken a few too many channels out of circulation, given how tight things are in some parts of the country.

I believe it was originally about deficit reduction, too, as well as paying for the converter box coupon program.

I agree that they may have taken a few too many channels out of circulation, given how tight things are in some parts of the country.

Washington has for years "anticipated" tens of billions of dollars accrued by the various auctions.

The coupons for boxes, the NYC 9/11 fund, the grant to Low-Power and translator stations and the fund for National alert and tsunami warnings - are all peanuts compared the billions already on the books for years and already spent!

From the VHF file:

WPBN is requesting to make channel 50 permanent as a 15 kW fill-in translator on the primary tower (not the current location), and move from channel 7 to channel 47, which is being abandoned by WFQX. It looks like they want to buy the channel 47 stuff from WFQX.

WWBT has requested to boost power from 6 kW to 26 kW.

- Trip

From the VHF file, just one this evening. Back to Traverse City we go, as WWTV asks to boost from 30 kW to 45 kW.

- Trip

And WJW and WOIO will be the last two stations in America stuck with bad VHF facilities.

I knew I shouldn't have come back to this thread. :D

I finally got a capture of a DT decode via Es of a "live frame" vs the menu aftermath on the DTT901. http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/wbra-dt-3.1z.jpg WBRA-DT-3.1 Roanoke, VA 1187 miles. What ERP are they currently at ?

I finally got a capture of a DT decode via Es of a "live frame" vs the menu aftermath on the DTT901. http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/wbra-dt-3.1z.jpg WBRA-DT-3.1 Roanoke, VA 1187 miles. What ERP are they currently at ?

I'm told they're running 9.8 kW out of the directional pattern. They have no authority to be doing so as far as I can tell, but I was told they were "testing" with it. The omni is supposed to be put up in the next month or so.

You and I must have been DXing at the same time. You managed to decode a frame of the low-VHF station from my area, and I managed to decode a frame of KCWX-DT 5 from your area this afternoon. :)

- Trip

For a goodly while KCWX-DT-5 was not decoding with the antenna aimed n.e. (it resumed later) from what I assume was all the onslaught of other DT-5 stations coming in from that direction. The DTT901 "meter" was bouncing all over the place on them then. I would have to get a local on the most-populated low-VHF DT channel. http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/lovesavd.htm

Okay, let's see.

WNUV wants an experimental STA to try a non-synchronous DTS at 0.5 kW.

From the VHF file:

KTWU-11 in Topeka wants to boost from 25 kW to 38 kW.

The big news of the evening--WLS wants off of 7. I don't know what channel though. We'll know in about 6 hours.

- Trip

...

The big news of the evening--WLS wants off of 7. I don't know what channel though. We'll know in about 6 hours.

- Trip

Channel 44?

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=181115

Do you have links to any of the supporting documents filed with their PRM? Those might be an interesting read!

Yep, channel 44. At 473.33 kW ND.

The paperwork has not shown up on the FCC site yet, since it's handled by hand and not electronically. It should be up within the next few days, and I will provide a link when it shows up.

- Trip

Okay, let's see.

The big news of the evening--WLS wants off of 7. I don't know what channel though. We'll know in about 6 hours.

- Trip

Why does WLS want off of 7?

As I recall, they were one of the stations with the highest number of complaints to the FCC's complaint line during the period of and immediately following the transition. A power boost is not an option due to spacing problems with WOOD-DT 7 and WMVS-DT 8.

- Trip

As I recall, they were one of the stations with the highest number of complaints to the FCC's complaint line during the period of and immediately following the transition. A power boost is not an option due to spacing problems with WOOD-DT 7 and WMVS-DT 8.

- Trip

So does that mean there is hope for the Los Angeles stations to move back to UHF (KTTV, KABC, KCAL or KCOP)? Please say yes. Please get my hopes up. It's ok to.

Thanks.

So does that mean there is hope for the Los Angeles stations to move back to UHF (KTTV, KABC, KCAL or KCOP)? Please say yes. Please get my hopes up. It's ok to.

Thanks.

I doubt KTTV or KCOP move, since they have permits for massive power increases.

As for KABC or KCAL, I have no idea. There are channels available for them to move to if they want it, but I wouldn't bet on it.

- Trip

So does that mean there is hope for the Los Angeles stations to move back to UHF (KTTV, KABC, KCAL or KCOP)? Please say yes. Please get my hopes up. It's ok to.

Thanks.

Trip has given you a tool to figure that out at rabbitears.info. Click on markets, enter a call to search on, click on "Technical Data and Screencaps", then click on the (S) to start a channel search. The short answer in this case is:

not for all of them.

These pictures (and captions) say it all. Thanks WBRA!

http://www.rabbitears.info/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1088
http://www.rabbitears.info/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1092

E-skip, yet another problem for low-VHF broadcasters.

- Trip

Hey, Trip (or anyone, but he would probably know best), answer me this possibly naive question...

In the analog era, the FCC had a set table of channel allocations for full-power stations. It was pretty sacrosanct, save for the occasional switch, swap. or drop-in.

Is there (or will there ever be) any similarly set allocation table for DTV? The impression I get from reading articles and FCC apps is that they're more or less making it up as they go along. In other words, it's not "here are the channels assigned to your market" but, rather, "well, tell us what you want and we'll see whether it can be shoehorned in or not."

I was wondering if they were perhaps waiting for things to settle (as they work out the obvious kinks in their previous conceptions of coverage/interference/spacing on DTV) and then might establish just which channels are available in which markets, maybe prior to lifting the freeze on new station apps? Or will they continue to play it on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis?

Yes, there is such a table. 47CFR73.622. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/octqtr/47cfr73.622.htm

That's what my channel change page tracks, petitions to amend that section of the rules.

And there are actual spacing rules too, which is what my Available Channel Search checks against, but the FCC allows existing stations to ignore those if they can prove with an interference study that less than 0.5% interference will result.

- Trip

Yes, there is such a table. 47CFR73.622.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/octqtr/47cfr73.622.htm



Looks to me like that table is quite out of date (almost 2 years old) -- it has the old pre-transition assignments (including out-of-core 52-69), but not their post-transition counterparts. (Example: Orlando shows 58, but not 26; Melbourne shows 20, but not 43, etc.) Is there a current table anywhere?

Current-ish. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-72A2.pdf

It does not contain any of the recent channel changes...

- Trip

So does that mean there is hope for the Los Angeles stations to move back to UHF (KTTV, KABC, KCAL or KCOP)? Please say yes. Please get my hopes up. It's ok to.

9 has been working well enough for me on a 4221. It's 7 that I would most like to see moved to UHF (as long as it's not the old 53 antenna, that was awful).

I am not as concerned with 11 and 13, as long as they actually construct their granted 115/120kW facilities.

7 tends to be more unforgiving when using UHF antennas for upper VHF reception.

I can't see all LA VHF stations being able to move back to UHF unless the Land Mobile allocations in the 14-20 range are cleared. That seems highly unlikely at this point.

Looks to me like that table is quite out of date (almost 2 years old) -- it has the old pre-transition assignments (including out-of-core 52-69), but not their post-transition counterparts. (Example: Orlando shows 58, but not 26; Melbourne shows 20, but not 43, etc.) Is there a current table anywhere?
There are two tables in the document. Scroll to the bottom for the correct table.

Ron

I can't see all LA VHF stations being able to move back to UHF unless the Land Mobile allocations in the 14-20 range are cleared. That seems highly unlikely at this point.

22, 45, 46, 50.

- Trip

OK, scratch my previous rant in this post...

There are two tables in the document. Scroll to the bottom for the correct table.

Ron

I did not notice that there was a second table further on down.

I think that document is updated once per year. On or around October 1, maybe.

I think the updated documents are available from the FCC, just not on the website. I'm not sure about that, but it would make sense that the lawyers have it somewhere.

- Trip

22, 45, 46, 50.

- Trip

That would work for me. I think I will keep calling the FCC and complaining about losing reception on 7-13 and that I haver perfect 14-51 before and after the switch.

ARE there even vacant, unapplied-for assignments on DTV? The old analog table included channels assigned, but not yet in use -- now that I look closer at both DTV allocation lists, it looks like just the currently operating (or licensed, at least) stations are listed. Maybe makes sense -- they assigned a DTV companion channel to every operating NTSC station, but not to vacant NTSC channel assignments.

So again, will they be including vacant, but assignable allocations that can be applied for in the future (like when the freeze on new station apps is lifted), or will it be a matter of (1)you want to apply for a new station, (2)your engineers crunch the numbers and come up with a channel that appears to be possible, (3)you apply to the FCC and hope their engineers agree with your engineers and add it to the allocation table? In other words, they are not delineating the available channels ahead of time, but merely adding them after the fact if they seem appropriate?

(And, no, I'm not planning on applying for a TV station license. :) I'm just a TV geek who used to like to be able to look at the allocations and say, "ah, there is still room here for X more full-power stations" in a particular area/market.)

When a station wants a channel, they file a "Petition for Rule Making" stating the channel number, proposed tower site, power levels, etc. Then it goes through the process and is added to the Table of Allotments, if approved.

This happened in the analog world for years, just that new analog allotments have been frozen for a number of years, for obvious reasons. A lot of the vacant allotments were actually allotments applied for through that procedure that never got built for one reason or another.

- Trip

22, 45, 46, 50.

- Trip

Then I'm not sure how to use the available channels mapping function. Don't 45 and 46 fail on allotment spacings?

Then I'm not sure how to use the available channels mapping function. Don't 45 and 46 fail on allotment spacings?

They did for me. 45 KUVI Bakersfield, and 46 KMIR Palm Springs. (And 22 XHUAA Tijuana and allegedly KNET-CA Los Angeles.)

Then I'm not sure how to use the available channels mapping function. Don't 45 and 46 fail on allotment spacings?

Yes, they do. You're using the tool properly.

However, the FCC is not enforcing the spacing rules on relocation of existing allotments. If it can be demonstrated that a station causes less than 0.5% interference to other stations, then a petition can happen. Those spacings only apply to new stations.

If KWHY and KESQ can co-exist peacefully, then 46 works (nothing in Mexico to worry about).

And KRCA had originally elected channel 45 in the channel elections, but the Mexicans were moving so slowly in approving it that they sought channel 35 instead since it was already approved from KMEX's use of the channel.

The available channel search was designed to be a starting point. Actual interference analyses have to be applied to know whether or not something is actually usable.

- Trip

When a station wants a channel, they file a "Petition for Rule Making" stating the channel number, proposed tower site, power levels, etc. Then it goes through the process and is added to the Table of Allotments, if approved.

This happened in the analog world for years, just that new analog allotments have been frozen for a number of years, for obvious reasons. A lot of the vacant allotments were actually allotments applied for through that procedure that never got built for one reason or another.

- Trip

You sure about that? Maybe in more recent years, it worked out that way by default (I mean, eventually the vast majority of those allocations were on-air anyway), but if you look at older allocations tables, say going back to the 60s, 70s, or even 80s, there are a ton of vacant channel assignments there (mostly, at the time, on UHF) and I seriously doubt every one of them had been applied for yet. I always thought the FCC assigned the available channels (including allocations for future growth in the market), and IF there were no vacant channels already assigned and available in the market that you could apply for, THEN you petitioned for a channel to be added. (And my impression was that didn't happen too often.)

The FCC did originally allocate a bunch of channels all over (I saw the original 1952 allocation table--it's on W9WI's site), but I think a lot of those got deleted during the 60's at some point. I saw some old Broadcasting yearbooks or something and at some point during the 60's, all those allotments vanished in favor of just existing in-use ones and a few other odd ones.

- Trip

The FCC did originally allocate a bunch of channels all over (I saw the original 1952 allocation table--it's on W9WI's site), but I think a lot of those got deleted during the 60's at some point. I saw some old Broadcasting yearbooks or something and at some point during the 60's, all those allotments vanished in favor of just existing in-use ones and a few other odd ones.

- Trip

FWIW, I just looked at a 1969 Broadcasting Yearbook (one of many PDFs available at this site (http://www.davidgleason.com/Radio_Archives.htm)). The allocation table shows about 53 or 54 (as best my middle-aged eyes can count) UHF channel assignments here in Florida. Well over half of these, maybe closer to 2/3, were not yet in use, and most had never been applied for. The vast majority are channels that eventually ended up being used, but in many cases WAY in the future. A few of them are to use your term "odd ones" that later disappeared (some because of land-mobile in 14-20, others for reasons unknown), but most are valid, vacant assignments that were established well before anyone applied for them.

So, I guess somewhere along the line, the practice changed. As I said, eventually most allocated channels were occupied anyway, and it may have been near that saturation point that additional channels were only added by petition.

So, I guess somewhere along the line, the practice changed. As I said, eventually most allocated channels were occupied anyway, and it may have been near that saturation point that additional channels were only added by petition.

The table of allocations was always an ever changing document. Consider the first version as an attempt to distribute TV services as equitably as possible. Subsequent filling of those allotments was driven by economics - rural areas could not support as many stations as technically possible while urban areas demanded more. The first "disappearing" of allotments happened as early stations failed - not only was the license turned in but the channel was deleted. The taking of channels 70 - 83 for cell phones soaked up a bunch more.

That would work for me. I think I will keep calling the FCC and complaining about losing reception on 7-13 and that I haver perfect 14-51 before and after the switch.
That might work for the left coast but dollar signs in the eyes of politicians really shafted television viewers in the NE and MW. The government either should not have auctioned 52-55 off or should have removed Land Mobile from 16-20. Remember the reason low VHF was kept in the table of allotments was that broadcasters complained that 7-51 wasn't enough channels.

My thought would be, why not get rid of 14-20 entirely since there's stuff already built out there, and just leave them to the land mobile usage completely. Then keep some of the channel 52-59 band instead.

But that would have made too much sense, I guess...

- Trip

We got a surprise today!

First of all, WPBN's petition has not yet been posted. Unsure why.

What did get posted, was a previously unknown petition by WLGA in Columbus GA to relocate from channel 47 to 30. No sooner did they buy WTVM's old UHF facilities than they're off changing channels again.

WLS was posted. I'm picking through it now. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019933971

They didn't get a waiver from WWAZ, but they do note their PRM is contingent on it.

- Trip

Three more for the VHF file, all want more power rather than different channels:

KTUL wants to go from 6.9 kW to 9.46 kW on the current antenna using existing equipment, until the omni and 15 kW can go on the air.

KOMU wants to boost from 13.6 kW to 17.3 kW.

KFJX wants to boost from 4.5 kW to 5.6 kW.

- Trip

I may be stupid (I am fat, deaf, and ignorant), but not a single one of these is as much as 3dB; do these small power increases make ANY difference?

I may be stupid (I am fat, deaf, and ignorant), but not a single one of these is as much as 3dB; do these small power increases make ANY difference?

Probably not much, though you'd be surprised. At WDBJ, we increased power from 460 kW to 675 kW, not 3 dB either, and we got a lot of positive response.

- Trip

I've got a clean decode on KNOP right now. :D

Got TSReader data and everything!

- Trip

It may be similar to the case of my former TV station (KXTV Sacramento) that applied for a power increase to the maximum the existing DTV transmitter would make which was only about a 1.1 dB increase. The reason in their case was simple, no equipment cost was incurred, it causes only a slight increase in the power bill, and it is 1.1 dB to the good. Even with this minimal increase the FCC is requiring them to notify all medical facilities in the area of the increase. Seems crazy to me but the FCC insists which is costing them a couple of K to pay a contractor to mail all of the notifications and delaying the increase a month.

I've got a clean decode on KNOP right now. :D

Got TSReader data and everything!

- Trip
What antenna are you picking that up with?

What antenna are you picking that up with?

The Y5-2-6.

- Trip

ARE there even vacant, unapplied-for assignments on DTV? The old analog table included channels assigned, but not yet in use -- now that I look closer at both DTV allocation lists, it looks like just the currently operating (or licensed, at least) stations are listed. Maybe makes sense -- they assigned a DTV companion channel to every operating NTSC station, but not to vacant NTSC channel assignments.


There were several vacant digital assignments that were auctioned off by the FCC during the last full power TV auction in 2006. Since the FCC has had a freeze in effect since the middle of 2004 on rulemakings to create *new* digital assignments, there should be no vacant assignments right now -- and won't be until the FCC lifts that freeze.

Speaking of which...anyone have any idea when the rulemaking freeze for new stations might get lifted?

Speaking of which...anyone have any idea when the rulemaking freeze for new stations might get lifted?Speculation: At least next year. There is a lot of sorting out to do before opening up to new entries.

My thought would be, why not get rid of 14-20 entirely since there's stuff already built out there, and just leave them to the land mobile usage completely. Then keep some of the channel 52-59 band instead.

But that would have made too much sense, I guess...

- Trip

That's a nice thought. But, I thought part of the big picture was to move 'cellphones' away from 'cops'. That 14-20 solution might cause deja vu all over again.

I've got a clean decode on KNOP right now. :D

Got TSReader data and everything!

- Trip

Tonight was great for me. I was able to recapture KNOP-DT, KOTA-DT, and KDLO-DT. KNOP RF2 came in at 6:50pmCT at 100% for about a minute, then ten minutes later at 7:00pmCT, KOTA RF2 came in around 90%. Also around 7 o'clock, KDLO RF3 came in around 80-90%. I checked it again around 8:30pmCT, and KOTA and KDLO were coming in around 70-85%, and I got pictures that time. I will try and post it on my website as soon as I can.

Let's see here:

KOBG remains committed to turning in its license and downgrading to a translator.

WNJB has abandoned its plans to move to 4 Times Square. What you see is what you get.

On the VHF front, KOAM-7 has asked to boost power from 14.5 kW ND to 55 kW DA.

- Trip

nm

Tonight was great for me. I was able to recapture KNOP-DT, KOTA-DT, and KDLO-DT. KNOP RF2 came in at 6:50pmCT at 100% for about a minute, then ten minutes later at 7:00pmCT, KOTA RF2 came in around 90%. Also around 7 o'clock, KDLO RF3 came in around 80-90%. I checked it again around 8:30pmCT, and KOTA and KDLO were coming in around 70-85%, and I got pictures that time. I will try and post it on my website as soon as I can.
There was some intense Es yesterday, with many reports of propagation in the 144 MHz amateur band. Overall, it's been a very good year for Es and it's still going fairly late in the season. At W6RZ, most notable contacts this summer on 50 MHz were with stations in Hay River, NT Canada (pretty much in the middle of nowhere) and Puerto Rico (on triple hop).

Ron

As far as my 88-108 MHz Es data here, July this year has been better than June
http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/fmes05bdc.htm
http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/fmes06bdc.htm
http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/fmes07bdc.htm

... Overall, it's been a very good year for Es and it's still going fairly late in the season...
Ron

Oh how I'd love to see some of the TV Es reach us out here on the West Coast! It sure would be fun trying to pull in all of those distant stations, but we get nothing except an occasional inversion. :(

Larry
SF

Oh how I'd love to see some of the TV Es reach us out here on the West Coast! It sure would be fun trying to pull in all of those distant stations, but we get nothing except an occasional inversion. :(

Larry
SF

Same in the east. Other than June 12-14, our E's in the mid Atlantic has been uneventful compared to other years.

Oh how I'd love to see some of the TV Es reach us out here on the West Coast! It sure would be fun trying to pull in all of those distant stations, but we get nothing except an occasional inversion. :(

Larry
SF
Now that low-VHF has been cleared out here in the Bay Area, it's at least possible. However, it's still very difficult. WA5IYX has some nice maps on his website that graphically show the problem.

http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/lovesavd.htm

On channel 2, KVBC is a bit too close and WBLZ is too far (at least for single hop). So there are only 4 candidates, KREX, KNOP, KJWY and KOTA.

Channel 3 is worse. KIEM and KVNV are too close and WBRA is too far. Only KYUS and KDLO are good candidates.

The most populated channels are 5 and 6. But as you go up in frequency, there's less Es propagation.

The way to go would be a computer controlled ATSC receiver. You could just let the computer look for a lock on the demodulator and start recording the bitstream. You would probably get many little snippets of usable bitstream, some from meteor bursts.

Ron

Oh how I'd love to see some of the TV Es reach us out here on the West Coast! It sure would be fun trying to pull in all of those distant stations, but we get nothing except an occasional inversion. :(

Larry
SF

Tonight is the night!

There are a couple of hinderances to Es DTV decodes. The system is designed to abort a decode if there are too many multipath signals of similar strength, a common situation with Es propagation. Co-channel interference, especially if from other DTV signals, results in the supression of decodes for any unless a certain level of dominance occurs. From here, most of the DT-2 stations are in a clustered azimuth to the wnw-n so have a higher chance of being in simultaneously. By listening to the DTV pilot on 54.310 MHz on a Yaesu FT-748 one often hears these multiple signals beating against each other at a 2-4 Hz rate. Though they may be very loud, a decode in that situation will not occur.
For a half decade or so, our local lo-VHF NTSC (especially KCWX-2) would show evidence of DTV "snow" during Es events. And now, the only low-VHF full-power DTV station in Texas is c. 50 mi north of me on a channel where many of the other US low-VHF DTV are situated (Ch 5).

Just one from the VHF file this evening. KUHT-8 wants to increase power from 34.3 kW to 71 kW.

- Trip

There are a couple of hinderances to Es DTV decodes. The system is designed to abort a decode if there are too many multipath signals of similar strength, a common situation with Es propagation. Co-channel interference, especially if from other DTV signals, results in the supression of decodes for any unless a certain level of dominance occurs. From here, most of the DT-2 stations are in a clustered azimuth to the wnw-n so have a higher chance of being in simultaneously. By listening to the DTV pilot on 54.310 MHz on a Yaesu FT-748 one often hears these multiple signals beating against each other at a 2-4 Hz rate. Though they may be very loud, a decode in that situation will not occur.
For a half decade or so, our local lo-VHF NTSC (especially KCWX-2) would show evidence of DTV "snow" during Es events. And now, the only low-VHF full-power DTV station in Texas is c. 50 mi north of me on a channel where many of the other US low-VHF DTV are situated (Ch 5).
Co-channel interference is certainly one of the issues limiting Es DTV decoding. DTV signals look like noise to each other, so in co-channel situations, a station has to be at least 15 dB stronger than any other station (or combination of stations) to "capture" the demodulator.

There's a couple of other effects at play. First, the MUF (Maximum Usable Frequency) for the path has to be above the top of the channel. If the MUF is less than the top of the channel, then it looks like super severe multipath to the demodulator (and the channel equalizer can't cope with that). For a nice flat channel response, the MUF should probably be well above the top of the channel.

Also, it has to be a fairly stable path. If there's lots of fading, then again, the equalizer is going to have a difficult time adapting quickly enough. This is also why mobile ATSC doesn't work well (unless it has the extra channel coding of the new M/H ATSC standard). BTW, M/H streams should be easier to decode on Es (assuming the low-VHF stations actually start sending M/H streams and you can buy an M/H receiver that you can plug an outside antenna into).

Finally, the 6 MHz bandwidth and the 15 dB S/N requirement of DTV doesn't help. Assuming 15 dB of S/N is also required for FM or SSB, you are at a 14 dB disadvantage to 200 kHz 88-108 MHz FM and a 33 dB disadvantage to 3 kHz SSB.

Ron

Es MUFs often are not as "sharp" as found with F2 propagation and can be "power sensitive" - providing both weak video and audio. However, in nearly 50 years of doing this, there have been numerable instances where very strong and high-resolution video would be in without any sound (so not a case where there was an insufficient vid carrier for the 4.5-MHz higher sound to beat against for the TV system to render it). Since the vid-aud data in ATSC is spread across the entire 6-MHz channel the conditions for decoding it are more stringent.

Just the other day with some NTSC Es from Mexico there was dramatic evidence of multipath ghosting. I got some video clips with my 8-mm (1994) camcorder off the 5" b&w monitor screen - now if I had an easy way to convert that for u/l on YouTube, etc. In some cases the video sync will shift between the multipath signals.

I really didn't start monitoring the NTSC vid-aud as separate entities until after I got the FT-847 in late 2002 - providing many Ch 3 idents by audio that way alone (I had to set the 5-el 6-m antenna to try to null KCWX's 59.760 for any chance at 2- or 2z audio - even with that gone the "habit" of leaving it beamed at that azimuth persists!) The FT-847 wont tune Ch 5 or 6 (we've a KFLZ-CA-6 local anyway) so I have to rely on the DTT901 for any evidence of Ch 6 DTV Es (it has indicated some).

Tonight is the night!

Nope... not here. :)

Larry
SF

Now that low-VHF has been cleared out here in the Bay Area, it's at least possible. However, it's still very difficult. WA5IYX has some nice maps on his website that graphically show the problem.

http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/lovesavd.htm

Ron

Interesting maps, Ron. Thanks for the link to IYX's site. Yeah, things even now don't look very promising.

I guess I'll just have to be happy when I get several of the Sacramento/Stockton stations at one time.

Larry
SF

I just poked at the FCC site in a moment of boredom. Looks like WGAL's power boost was granted today, as was the WNJB abandonment of 4TS.

I also just decoded an upper-VHF digital from home for the first time, not counting WNCT that I barely managed to pull in on top of WSLS analog once. WWBT-DT 12, recently boosted from 6 kW to 26 kW, came in very nicely off the back of my Y5-2-6 for about 10 minutes.

- Trip

The FT-847 wont tune Ch 5 or 6 (we've a KFLZ-CA-6 local anyway) so I have to rely on the DTT901 for any evidence of Ch 6 DTV Es (it has indicated some).

I've had some very good luck with DTV Es this season, here -- Including on ch 6 -- Just using DTV receiver's (such as DTT900) meter to detect the DTV signals involved ... In some cases, analog signals(canada/mexico or nightlights prior to 7/12) were useful to help spot where the signals were coming from as well, but I also simply check the low VHF channels sporadicially when I'm re-aiming antenna in different directions, that's how I logged KOTA ...

Attached text file shows my DTV Es logs -- all of them so far -- and I've been trying as long as KOTA-DT has been on air, so those interested in DTV Es who have been looking for it for a while, may not want to give up ... Times are EDT .... Last Wednesday evening was especially a treat ....

In each case, I managed to decode at least a few seconds of clean video/audio (and get good screenshots of all except KOTA), but not much more than that .... Except for WABW( I almost gave up on DTV during that opening, but stayed with it for several hours and was surprised when DTT900 finally indicated a DTV signal on 6 from the South) -- They weren't difficult receptions ...

Screenshots of a couple of them from Last Wed also attached ....

For some reason more of the reported DTV Es decodes have come from folks above 35 deg north vs those of us down south. It might have to do with the amount of simultaneous co-channel signals present in an event. Things "improved" here after the NTSC nightlight operations ceased (though KOTA-3 for many decades would often be in all by itself without any Ch 2, etc.) (below in CST)
2 KVBC NV Las Vegas 1053 300 ??-??-2009 ????
2 KNOP NE North Platte 819 352 07-13-2009 1115, 07-27 1642

3 KDLO SD Florence 1071 30 07-13-2009 1350
3 WBRA VA Roanoke 1187 58 07-28-2009 1419

4 WHBF IL Rock Island 950 26 07-15-2009 1308, 07-27 1559, 07-29 1216

The hours spent waiting per ident on these have been enormous, and then even the end resut has been often no more than the call in the DTT901 memory to show for it.

For some reason more of the reported DTV Es decodes have come from folks above 35 deg north vs those of us down south. It might have to do with the amount of simultaneous co-channel signals present in an event.

Don't feel too bad. I live 120 miles from WBRA and have NEVER decoded them on channel 3 even though I regularly received their channel 15 NTSC signal for years on the same tower on the same 4000 ft mountain. A friend of mine is 5 miles further south and decodes them regularly and he has a Radio Shack VHF/UHF combo antenna. I am running a VIP-307SR VHF TV antenna at 30 feet with a pre-amp. Go figure.

Near mountainous areas I'd have to suspect that multipath is the main DTV-killer culprit. When I was in Boulder, CO in 1971 the Ch 5 from Cheyenne, WY was rather strong there but so ghost-ridden from the Front Range of the Rockies, it was not very watchable. With Es the rapid fading (often akin to the rate and depth that an aircraft flying by can cause to a local) is also detrimental to any decode. In this part of Texas there are no 4000-ft perches to put a short tower on and get huge HAAT.

From the VHF file:

WVUE was apparently being delayed due to interference to KFOL-CD 30. There's now an interference agreement allowing their proposed move to 29 to happen.

KTWU wants an STA to operate at 38 kW immediately. Must be getting desperate about lost viewers.

The big news of the evening is that KWTV in Oklahoma City wishes to reactivate DT-39 and simulcast with DT-09. https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=780218&formid=911&q_num=5200

I seriously wonder what's taking some of these so long.

- Trip

The big news of the evening is that KWTV in Oklahoma City wishes to reactivate DT-39 and simulcast with DT-09. https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=780218&formid=911&q_num=5200
After clicking on the link, I found it interesting that KWTV is running 62.2 kW on Channel 9 as it is -- that's about double what the 9 and 7 in our market are running -- and yet they're still having trouble.

I'm also wondering what kind of trouble. They don't seem to specify beyond saying that "like many other stations with high VHF facilities, KWTV has experienced severe technical difficulties since making the transition to digital operations on Channel 9."

I see that KVIA here in El Paso has resumed broadcasting on channel 17 as well as 7. The signal strength is about the same on both for me with LOS at 25 miles using a Winegard HD7082P mounted at 25 feet.
It would be interesting to hear a reception comparison from someone further out in Las Cruces or Alamogordo.

I seriously wonder what's taking some of these so long.


Especially in the case of KWTV, which moved to 9 in February. It appears that they were originally at low power, then full power (40kW - early March) and now at 62.2kW under an STA.

Maybe they have found that summer weather isn't agreeing with their signal.

I checked their website and they have a link at the top of the home page to call or e-mail if having problems. I couldn't find any articles about it, however.

It's rather sad, but nothing noteworthy out of the FCC yesterday!

- Trip

It's rather sad, but nothing noteworthy out of the FCC yesterday!

- Trip

It was pretty much a normal day then!;)

Well, nothing notable in our field, anyway. A non-commercial radio station got fined for broadcasting ads, and there've been a lot of telephone-related actions, including some letters to Apple, AT&T and Google over a Google app that got rejected from the iPhone. The Daily Digests list plenty of action.

But as for TV, I haven't really seen any filing updates in or near my state, aside from some low-power stations trying to get settled, particularly in Minnesota.

It's almost as if things are pretty much settled out here -- Sioux City will still have a 9, Cedar Rapids-Waterloo will still have 7, 9 and 12, Des Moines will still have 5, 8, 11 and 13, and the Quad Cities will still have that dreaded 4.

Still watching, though ...

Speaking of things which have come up, here's something I missed posting about from Friday:

A couple living in a townhome development in Palatine, IL -- a suburb northwest of Chicago -- claims their homeowners association is illegally trying to banish their antenna to the attic. They claim the attic isn't giving them the signal they need, and they've petitioned the FCC, citing the OTARD rules.

More at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1718A1.pdf

I was surprised to see the Palatine petition go this far. I thought OTARD was designed to trump such HOA restrictions. But there most be more to this issue; anyone care to enlighten?

What about the laggard stations such as the Barrington former low-banders that have yet to make moves to increase power beyond 100 kW on UHF? Would it possibly hurt to send 25 kW of raw power up the coax? Class C FMs use 20 - 25 kW input levels regularly. Is a small market class C FM station more profitable than a small market network affiliate TV? Maybe running the full 1 MW is too costly, but 400 kW ERP shouldn't be too much to ask...400 kW would get 90% the coverage of 1 MW for about half the electric bill.

I suggested on the wildly popular Marquette thread (it's ahead of Kirksville-Ottumwa!) that such stations might need to have licenses challenged. With today's reality though, probably no one wants 'em!

I was surprised to see the Palatine petition go this far. I thought OTARD was designed to trump such HOA restrictions. But there most be more to this issue; anyone care to enlighten?


I would think that OTARD should have convinced the HOA board that they picked the wrong fight and that they need to change their regulations. I'd like to see more as well.

does anyone remember what area the FIOS discussion was held in?

I would think that OTARD should have convinced the HOA board that they picked the wrong fight and that they need to change their regulations. I'd like to see more as well.
In a townhouse, they may not own the roof or other outside areas, in which case the association would legally be able to block them from installing on the roof and other common areas.

From the VHF file:

Looks like the bank is learning their lesson.

KSWT-13 wants to boost power from 20 kW to 50 kW. KHGI-13 wants to boost power from 8 kW to 19.8 kW.

Finally, KCWX has asked for a fill-in translator... on channel 8... in Austin. I'm not sure I understand the logic, but there you go.

- Trip

KCWX's original choice for its full-power DT was Ch 8, but KTBC in Austin objected since its DT was going to revert from Ch 56 to 7 there. Austin has its own CW net now so KCWX was dropped from CATV carriage there. Belo "manages" them thru KENS, and KVUE in Austin is another Belo propery. What with the level that KIII-DT-8 Corpus often has in here maybe just as well they ended up with DT-5. All very strange.

New documents showed up in the ECFS.

First of all, yet another proposal to reallocate channels 5 and 6 to FM radio. I need to read through it when I get some time.

WPBN's PRM showed up. It doesn't say anything unexpected.

Finally, WWAZ's NPRM to move to channel 5 got three different sets of opposing comments, including WGVK-DT 5 right across the Lake. This might throw a wrench into WLS's channel 44 petition.

- Trip

KNAZ was FINALLY issued an NPRM for channel 22.

- Trip

You posted this before I got the Daily Digest... Not fair. :D

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA. Proposed channel substitution for station KNAZ-TV from channel 2 to 22. (Dkt No. RM-11453 08-110 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/04/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1755).

The FCC really put them to task to justify staying on 22. Despite all the VHF fallout, the FCC still seems to care more about contours and coverage on paper vs. the real world. If mobile DTV hadn't been made an issue, what would have happened?

Speaking of which, mobile DTV has been showcased in LV on UHF, when all the networks are VHF there...

Finally, WWAZ's NPRM to move to channel 5 got three different sets of opposing comments, including WGVK-DT 5 right across the Lake. This might throw a wrench into WLS's channel 44 petition.

So, a station, 126 miles away, that is silent on 44 due to financial hardship could prevent WLS/ABC Chicago from serving viewers adequately. Nice. :rolleyes:

For those interested in the antenna project on Sutro Tower in San Francisco, where they're removing all of the old analog antennas and replacing them with new antennas for today's digital stations, check out my Sutro Tower site:
http://www.larrykenney.com/sutrotwr.html

Larry
SF

Absolutely terrific pictures.

Thank you - thank you!!!!

Wish we had in NYC such documentation of the work on the ESB!!!!

So, a station, 126 miles away, that is silent on 44 due to financial hardship could prevent WLS/ABC Chicago from serving viewers adequately. Nice. :rolleyes:Sounds like a good time to solve the financial hardship ... WLS buys the station and proposes a change that won't negatively affect anyone else.

I finally got all of the little tuners that I'll be mailing off to collect data for RabbitEars, and they come with this crappy, almost useless antenna. For giggles, I went ahead and hooked it up to my laptop, which has a custom version of azap to check for signal.

WFXR-17 - 5 dB
WDBJ-18 - 6 dB
WWCW-20 - 18 dB
WDRL-24 - 3 dB
WSLS-30 - 6 dB
WSET-34 - 16 dB
WPXR-36 - 2 dB

That was just in a random position without moving the antenna. I was amused that WDRL was actually stronger than WPXR. I wonder if it's due to a higher noise floor due to WUNP-DT 36 behind me.

I might play with it some more. I also might play with the Silver Sensor. I want to see if I can get WVIR with an indoor antenna from here. I know it's powerful on the roof antenna if it's aimed that way.

- Trip

So, a station, 126 miles away, that is silent on 44 due to financial hardship could prevent WLS/ABC Chicago from serving viewers adequately. Nice. :rolleyes:

If the license is active, even with a Silent STA, as far as the FCC is concerned, there is a station there that has interference protection.

What about the laggard stations such as the Barrington former low-banders that have yet to make moves to increase power beyond 100 kW on UHF? Would it possibly hurt to send 25 kW of raw power up the coax? Class C FMs use 20 - 25 kW input levels regularly. Is a small market class C FM station more profitable than a small market network affiliate TV? Maybe running the full 1 MW is too costly, but 400 kW ERP shouldn't be too much to ask...400 kW would get 90% the coverage of 1 MW for about half the electric bill.


The issue is probably not so much the electric bill as it is the capital cost of buying the higher powered digital transmitter -- needless to say, a 25 kw DTV transmitter costs quite a bit more than a 25 kw FM transmitter.

Also, the same nominal output power from a UHF digital TV transmitter requires quite a bit more input power than does an FM transmitter -- as a result of differences in efficiency at UHF versus VHF, as well as the difference in waveforms between ATSC digital and analog FM. A 10.5 kw UHF ATSC transmitter from Harris requires 56.7 kVA (solid state, Harris Diamond Series), whereas a 10 kw FM transmitter from Bext only requires 18 kw (HS 10000 solid state, hot swappable MOSFET broadband). So the electric bill for the digital TV station would be roughly triple that of the FM station, even though the transmitter output power is roughly the same.

The issue is probably not so much the electric bill as it is the capital cost of buying the higher powered digital transmitter -- needless to say, a 25 kw DTV transmitter costs quite a bit more than a 25 kw FM transmitter.

Point well taken. However, one would think the sub 100kW UHFs would move on getting replacement translators to at least cover loss areas in their DMAs. And Barrington is heading in that direction with WPBN in Traverse City

KNMD and KKTV approved.

- Trip

KNMD and KKTV approved.

- Trip

POST-TRANSITION DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, 47 C.F.R. 73.622(I), SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO. Changed station KNMD-DT's post-transition DTV channel from *9 to *8. (Dkt No. 09-110 RM-11542 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/04/2009 by R&O. (DA No. 09-1757).

POST-TRANSITION DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, 47 C.F.R. 73.622(I), COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO. Changed station KKTV(TV)'s post-transition DTV channel from 10 to 49. (Dkt No. RM-11541 09-111 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/04/2009 by R&O. (DA No. 09-1758).

We believe the public interest would be served by substituting DTV channel 49 for DTV channel 10 at Colorado Springs. According to Gray, it receives a substantial amount of interference on channel 10. In addition, numerous viewers throughout the KKTV(TV) service area are experiencing reception problems inherent with high VHF digital channels in certain markets. Operation of the proposed channel 49 facility will increase the population predicted to be served by the station by almost a million persons, resolve the VHF reception problems experienced by present viewers and improve the possibility for future service to viewers using hand-held and mobile devices.

New documents showed up in the ECFS.

First of all, yet another proposal to reallocate channels 5 and 6 to FM radio. I need to read through it when I get some time.
- Trip
Related to that, "The Broadcast Maximization Committee (BMC), in a communication to the FCC dated Aug. 5, has formally requested an "emergency freeze" on filings for operation of digital low power television transmitters, including translators, on either Channel 5 or 6."

Related to that, "The Broadcast Maximization Committee (BMC), in a communication to the FCC dated Aug. 5, has formally requested an "emergency freeze" on filings for operation of digital low power television transmitters, including translators, on either Channel 5 or 6."

So, considering that most of the full-power low-VHF DTV are on those two channels
http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/lovesavd.htm
more $ for stations (who haven't already decided to bail out of the band for other reasons). Perhaps a way for those ex-NTSC Ch 6 folks to get an audio outlet back on.:rolleyes:

Once again, nothing interesting from the FCC...

- Trip

Nothing even about WWMT's supposed doubling of power?

http://www.wwmt.com/news/newschannel-1365537-0in-problems.html

Nope. Just some more low-powered stations.

WNEP is in the midst of flipping much of their translator network to digital. I've already added the listings from all the ones they announced on their website as converting this week and next to RabbitEars.

- Trip

Just got an e-mail back from WWMT's engineer, and it turns out they were at 16 kW and now are at 25 kW. That isn't double the power, and didn't require any FCC authorization.

I wish news departments at least tried to understand what was going on.

- Trip

WHDH's request for permanent operations on 42 has reached the next step.

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. Proposed channel substitution for station WHDH-TV from channel 7 to 42. (Dkt No. RM-11552 09-142 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/05/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1770).

I wish news departments at least tried to understand what was going on.

Why start now and ruin such a long-standing tradition? ;)

WWAZ replied to all comments involved.

They're linked off my channel change page (http://www.rabbitears.info/chchg.php).

- Trip

Hello Trip,

Do you have the informations on proposed realocating channel 5 and 6 to FM broadcast band, so I need the ECFS number so I can read it?

Thanks!!

8-7-09

Look at the Minority whatever under PRM09MB. That's the one I was looking at. I still haven't read it, and I doubt I will.

- Trip

Trip,

I try typing the PRM09mb, and FCC's website saying there is no file exist....:p

The FCC's website is a mess and confusing, can you post a direct link this way it would be very helpfull for me and others?

Thanks!!

8-8-09

WWAZ replied to all comments involved.

They're linked off my channel change page (http://www.rabbitears.info/chchg.php).

- Trip

And WWAZ has a solid case for all 3. How fast the FCC will say "sorry, Charlie" to the other guys remains to be seen.

Did you type it in all caps? The ECFS is case sensitive; has to be PRM09MB in all caps.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019934448
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019934449
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7019934450

- Trip

And WWAZ has a solid case for all 3. How fast the FCC will say "sorry, Charlie" to the other guys remains to be seen.

I wish WWAZ had decided to move to 6 instead of 5 solely because of the interference potential to WGVK.

- Trip

Thanks Trip, for the links!!

I should have known better by using upper case letters.....:o

Btw,

Here's the new update on K38IM has filed to the FCC for moving to channel 31 and flash cut to digital.....

Here's the link!!:)

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101326460&formid=346&fac_num=40743

8-8-09

I finally got all of the little tuners that I'll be mailing off to collect data for RabbitEars, and they come with this crappy, almost useless antenna.

- Trip

I hooked up my "little antenna" for about 5 minutes, threw it in a corner and cant even find it now, nor do I care.

It looks like it should work better than it does.

Finally, KCWX has asked for a fill-in translator... on channel 8... in Austin. I'm not sure I understand the logic, but there you go.

Seems odd, given that KTBC has objected to KCWX using channel 8 in the past (which is why they were stuck with low VHF channel 5). Why wouldn't KTBC want to stop this -- especially if it would be in the same tower farm as KTBC and all the other full power Austin stations? Not to mention LIN and KNVA, since this could cannibalize KNVA's audience as the Austin CW affiliate.

And if KCWX is a Belo property like KENS and KVUE, why not ask for KVUE's abandoned analog channel 24 instead of 8, given all the VHF problems people have been experiencing? Seems like 24 should definitely be available...

I wish WWAZ had decided to move to 6 instead of 5 solely because of the interference potential to WGVK.

- Trip

"Tropospheric ducting" is an invalid argument in the FCC playbook. Sure, it is a real-world problem from the spring-fall, and then, to a lesser extent, E-skip. Then again, WGVK's decision to go to 5 was a bad one. WWAZ was due to money and a lack of open space on VHF-HI.

"Tropospheric ducting" is an invalid argument in the FCC playbook. Sure, it is a real-world problem from the spring-fall, and then, to a lesser extent, E-skip. Then again, WGVK's decision to go to 5 was a bad one. WWAZ was due to money and a lack of open space on VHF-HI.

I never said it was. I said that it would be nice if WWAZ had asked for 6 on their own.

And WGVK's analog was on 52, so they couldn't go back to their analog channel. They'd have to build out another facility entirely, including finding a workable new channel, in order to do it. And PBS stations don't generally have the money to do those sorts of things too often.

- Trip

Seems odd, given that KTBC has objected to KCWX using channel 8 in the past (which is why they were stuck with low VHF channel 5). Why wouldn't KTBC want to stop this -- especially if it would be in the same tower farm as KTBC and all the other full power Austin stations? Not to mention LIN and KNVA, since this could cannibalize KNVA's audience as the Austin CW affiliate.

The problem was that the full-powered 8 would not be co-located, so it would cause a lot of interference in between the two towers. Since this would be low-powered and relatively co-located, it should cause no problems.

I would expect more complaints from LIN than from KTBC.

And if KCWX is a Belo property like KENS and KVUE, why not ask for KVUE's abandoned analog channel 24 instead of 8, given all the VHF problems people have been experiencing? Seems like 24 should definitely be available...

Who knows. I don't know why they're putting a translator in Austin in the first place since they're not the CW affiliate for Austin and can't be carried on cable there...

- Trip

The TOH tiny ID that KCWX-DT-5.2 has at the bottom of the screen runs something like this "Austin - Fredericksburg - San Antonio - Central Texas" so they're still rather hung up on being a multi-DMA item. With a TL 50 mi west of Austin there's plenty of area (though not heavily populated) where a full-powered DT-8 would dwarf KTBC-DT-7's signal level. If you've ever read the detail in the applications for some of our LPFM they go to extremes to prove that their signal levels will be in compliance for 2nd adjacents. The 93.3 K227BH argued that re 92.9 it would only exceed the allowable ratio within the property confines of the tower it was on, hence no affected listeners!

I hooked up my "little antenna" for about 5 minutes, threw it in a corner and cant even find it now, nor do I care.

It looks like it should work better than it does.
I'm surprised that it worked at all ... I used it for the first couple of markets before getting a better antenna. To me, the antenna works better than it looks because I expected nothing at all. :)

I never said it was. I said that it would be nice if WWAZ had asked for 6 on their own.

And WGVK's analog was on 52, so they couldn't go back to their analog channel. They'd have to build out another facility entirely, including finding a workable new channel, in order to do it. And PBS stations don't generally have the money to do those sorts of things too often.
The good news is that WWAZ is broke enough that they are unlikely to be able to build their Milwaukee station. The bad news is that if approved they will have a Milwaukee station to sell. :(

I wish that the FCC could make it a condition of license to build and maintain the two fill in translators - but I doubt they will. We'll probably see the fill ins die due to lack of funds and "yet another Milwaukee station" on the air.

The FCC won't make it a condition of license to provide the content that WWAZ claims they want to provide. Once built, channel 5 can be anything. WWAZ should be forced to provide service to the people they are licensed to provide service to or sell the license to someone who can. If they can't provide the service forfeit the license. Moving to Milwaukee is a scam.

I never said it was. I said that it would be nice if WWAZ had asked for 6 on their own.

And WGVK's analog was on 52, so they couldn't go back to their analog channel. They'd have to build out another facility entirely, including finding a workable new channel, in order to do it. And PBS stations don't generally have the money to do those sorts of things too often.

- Trip

And I know you never said it was. ;) I know it would have been nice if they asked for 6, but...FM interference would have been palpable in Milwaukee. And quite frankly, WGVK had opportunities to get off 5. After they saw what happened with 2 in their market and WBBM, they could have requested another channel in the 2nd round. They didn't. I know, cost-saving move. But my goodness, 5 kilowatts on channel 5 versus 5 kilowatts, on, say, channel 9...what would you rather have? Heck, I would have settled for 100 kw on a UHF, up high enough.

As for moving to Milwaukee: Justalurker, there's no money to be made in Fond Du Lac because all the major networks are taken. That's why they are bankrupt; they couldn't even get The CW. If I were programming that area, to have even a shot at ratings...I'd have to go with RTN, This TV, etc. Those have been taken now.

And, since Milwaukee just got RTN, and MeTV/MeToo is on in Milwaukee, they can't even go that route there. They have a full-powered TBN. Home shopping? WJJA tried on 49, and it barely paid the analog bills...and couldn't afford to go digital. In Fond Du Lac, Green Bay and Milwaukee, they are out of luck with all major and semi-major networks. A creative local channel? A longshot in this economy that no one would want to fund. I'm thinking FamilyNet would be their only option, and that to sell. But to sell it, they have to get into GB or Milwaukee. But any way you slice it, right now, it's looking very grim for them, and this may be just a bunch of paper-shuffling. I'm not an expert, but it looks like a pretty airtight case for WWAZ to move to 5. Let the FCC prove me wrong, but I'm guessing 5 won't be on the air for a long time, if ever.

And I know you never said it was. ;) I know it would have been nice if they asked for 6, but...FM interference would have been palpable in Milwaukee. And quite frankly, WGVK had opportunities to get off 5. After they saw what happened with 2 in their market and WBBM, they could have requested another channel in the 2nd round. They didn't. I know, cost-saving move. But my goodness, 5 kilowatts on channel 5 versus 5 kilowatts, on, say, channel 9...what would you rather have? Heck, I would have settled for 100 kw on a UHF, up high enough.

Channel 9 wouldn't have worked for them. WGVK would basically have to end up on 32 or 33.

I wonder if the WGVU-35 analog antenna would be tunable down to channel 33...

- Trip

Coverage Maps:
WGVK Kalamazoo (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1134126.html)
WLMB Toledo (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1042375.html)

I guess it is OK that five large cities east of Battle Creek are within both coverage areas? It is a shame that WGVK isn't on a better frequency.

Coverage Maps:
WGVK Kalamazoo (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1134126.html)
WLMB Toledo (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1042375.html)

I guess it is OK that five large cities east of Battle Creek are within both coverage areas? It is a shame that WGVK isn't on a better frequency.

And WGVK is complaining about tropo NOW?!? :rolleyes:

But my goodness, 5 kilowatts on channel 5 versus 5 kilowatts, on, say, channel 9...what would you rather have? Heck, I would have settled for 100 kw on a UHF, up high enough.

I'd rather have even 15kW on UHF than 5kW on 5.

Of course, the costs of changing antennas, equipment and hiring a tower crew, etc. don't make this a trivial expense.

I live inside the WGVK-DT converage area, have a medium size outside VHF/UHF antenna, live on a hill, and don't get any signal from them on my DTV or converter that feeds the VCR.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292644A1.pdf

WPSU and MSTV have filed petitions for reconsideration with regard to the DTS ruling a while back. I'm wondering what their problem with it is, since the documents are apparently not available online for some reason.

- Trip

I'd rather have even 15kW on UHF than 5kW on 5.

Of course, the costs of changing antennas, equipment and hiring a tower crew, etc. don't make this a trivial expense.

I would rather have 15KW on UHF than 4.9 KW on High band like I have with WNBW. At least with UHF I could build a massive array. Even close to 13 db looking at their tower it's not there a lot of the time.

=====

a total aside, and I know this is in the realm of blue sky stuff, but what if the FCC licensed a station for the DMA? Cover the DMA or it's not a fulfillment of the license. I believe in England they do something like this. But much less countryside to cover

That was actually proposed in the DTS proceedings but the FCC denied it.

- Trip

WPSU and MSTV have filed petitions for reconsideration with regard to the DTS ruling a while back. I'm wondering what their problem with it is, since the documents are apparently not available online for some reason.

- Trip

Are these the docs that you're looking for?

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520192474

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520192480

Are these the docs that you're looking for?

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520192474

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520192480

Thanks!

The first one is a minor nitpick in a footnote of the DTS document. The FCC assumed WPSU's authorization for its DTS had expired when that was not the case. Nothing worrisome.

The second is a request for stricter interference protection with regard to DTS facilities.

- Trip

I'd rather have even 15kW on UHF than 5kW on 5.

Of course, the costs of changing antennas, equipment and hiring a tower crew, etc. don't make this a trivial expense.

Totally agree. And thinks are looking potentially worse for WGVK and WWAZ...

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/85032

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/85058

Totally agree. And thinks are looking potentially worse for WGVK and WWAZ...

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/85032It is only a request, one of the many in the petition linked earlier in this thread. It is nothing unless the FCC actually implements a freeze. (Plus the requested freeze is for LP applications, not WGVK and WWAZ.)

WETA, apparently tired of waiting for action on their petition for channel 51, has now asked for a fill-in translator on channel 31 in Dickerson, MD.

- Trip

I never thought I'd be happy to see something like this:

POST-TRANSITION DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 73.622(I), FOND DU LAC, WISCONSIN. Changed station WWAZ-DT DTV channel from 44 to 5. Proceeding Terminated. (Dkt No. RM-11543 09-115 ). Action by: Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/11/2009 by R&O. (DA No. 09-1794).

Hopefully, it paves the way for WLS to move to 44.

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, CHICAGO, ILLINIOS. Proposed channel substitution for station WLS-TV from channel 7 to 44. (Dkt No. 09-146 RM-11553 ). Action by: Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/11/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1795).

I just noticed that the order appears to have the wrong coordinates for WWAZ:

45-05-46 N. and 87-54-15 W

I'm assuming this should be:

43-05-46 N. and 87-54-15 W

I never thought I'd be happy to see something like this:

POST-TRANSITION DTV TABLE OF ALLOTMENTS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 73.622(I), FOND DU LAC, WISCONSIN. Changed station WWAZ-DT DTV channel from 44 to 5. Proceeding Terminated. (Dkt No. RM-11543 09-115 ). Action by: Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/11/2009 by R&O. (DA No. 09-1794).

Hopefully, it paves the way for WLS to move to 44.

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, CHICAGO, ILLINIOS. Proposed channel substitution for station WLS-TV from channel 7 to 44. (Dkt No. 09-146 RM-11553 ). Action by: Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/11/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1795).

Very good:)

May it never be built. :(

Northpine.com/Upper Midwest Broadcasting webmaster Jon Ellis offers a take on the WWAZ situation on his site, here (http://www.northpine.com/broadcast/index.html).

I found this part of his analysis particularly interesting:

The FCC's own DTV Reception Maps website predicts that no other stations transmitting from the Milwaukee antenna farm can be received in Fond du Lac, though WWAZ would be the only one operating on VHF Low.


And yet, the FCC says the proposed Milwaukee site "complies with the principal community coverage requirements" for Fond du Lac, which is more than 50 miles from the new transmitter site.

Go figure.

At least Chicago viewers may be able to look forward to better penetration from WLS, so somebody wins.

May it never be built. :(

Given that the owners couldn't even build an STA for channel 44 at some low power with cheap equipment, I wouldn't worry about it.

No one in Fond du Lac can watch WWAZ anyway....

After almost a week of relative silence, it's broken in a single night. Holy crap. Let me sift through this and post here in a few minutes.

Stations involved: KOBI, WLBT, WDAM, WHBF, WOI, KCAU, KLKN.

- Trip

Okay, let's break this down:

KOBI-DT 5 wants to boost power from 5.4 kW to 6.35 kW. Whatever good that will do.

Citadel stations:

KCAU-DT 9 wants a fill-in translator on pre-transition channel 30 at 2.7 kW.

WHBF-DT 4 wants a fill-in translator on channel 47 at 2.3 kW.

WOI-DT 5 wants a fill-in translator on channel 50 at 3.2 kW.

KLKN-DT 8 wants a fill-in translator on pre-transition channel 31 at 3.2 kW.

None of the Citadel fill-in translators are co-located at their parents' main tower sites. Citadel, forever cheap.

Finally, the confusing one.

If I'm reading this right, WLBT in Jackson is giving up on channel 7. They've decided that there's nothing they can do to make 7 work. Let's ignore the fact that channel 7 is 700 feet lower on the tower than channel 3 was. Anyway, they have apparently submitted a PRM to relocate to channel 30. They want to operate it under STA immediate... from the top of their tower. Huh? Why wasn't 7 put up there?

Anyway, they claim that it will cause interference to WDAM on 28. Magic, I guess, causes interference to skip over channel 29 and affect 28 in just this situation and in no other. Anyway, because of this, they want to relocate WDAM from 28 back to 7, but instead of at the 10.3 kW level used by WLBT, they want 75 kW. It would recycle the existing channel 7 antenna.

- Trip

Okay, let's break this down:

WHBF-DT 4 wants a fill-in translator on channel 47 at 2.3 kW.
- Trip
Maybe sending postcards to their advertisers, letting them know I represent 22 households & 30 TV sets, who can not receive their broadcasts, did have an impact.
Amazing their website proclaims WHBF-DT is still broadcasting on RF 58.
http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=4159536

Maybe sending postcards to their advertisers, letting them know I represent 22 households & 30 TV sets, who can not receive their broadcasts, did have an impact.
Amazing their website proclaims WHBF-DT is still broadcasting on RF 58.
http://www.whbf.com/Global/story.asp?S=4159536

Some of us know differently :)
http://www.qsl.net/w/wa5iyx//images/whbf-dt-4.1zm.jpg
http://www.qsl.net/w/wa5iyx//images/whbf-dt-4.1z.jpg

From today's FCC Daily Digest:

It appears WVUE's proposed channel change has cleared another hurdle.

"AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA. Proposed channel substitution for station WVUE-DT from channel 8 to 29. (Dkt No. 09-147 RM-11554 ). Action by: Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/12/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1805)."

Link to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1805A1.pdf

Apparently WVUE's owner was initially informed that their Channel 29 application was mutually exclusive with a Class A station on Channel 30 in Houma, LA, but the two stations have come to terms and have an interference acceptance agreement with each other.

The change is subject to a comment period.

From today's FCC Daily Digest:

It appears WVUE's proposed channel change has cleared another hurdle.

"AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA. Proposed channel substitution for station WVUE-DT from channel 8 to 29. (Dkt No. 09-147 RM-11554 ). Action by: Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/12/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-1805)."

Link to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1805A1.pdf

Apparently WVUE's owner was initially informed that their Channel 29 application was mutually exclusive with a Class A station on Channel 30 in Houma, LA, but the two stations have come to terms and have an interference acceptance agreement with each other.

The change is subject to a comment period.

In an interview with the local paper here about a month ago, WVUE's GM strongly hinted that they were asking for a power increase, in addition to the rulemaking to go back to DT29.

I see that power increase documented for the first time here (850 up from the pre-transition and current 660 Kw). There is an HAAT increase indicated as well. (292m up from 275m).

WVUE and WYES have shared a tower site for decades. It consists of two "twin" towers that are unnervingly close to one-another.

In the analog days, WYES transmitted on channel 12 from a top-mounted antenna on their tower, and WVUE on channel 8 from a top mount on their tower.

Currently, WYES transmits on DT11 from that same antenna that was used for channel 12. (They used a combiner to transmit both digital and analog from that antenna before the analog shut down.)

The pre-transition channel 29 side-mount for WVUE is, curiously, on WYES' tower (under that channel 12/11 antenna). I'm guessing the plan is to replace the top mounted channel 8 antenna on the WVUE tower with a top mounted antenna for 29. The proposed HAAT comes out about right this way. (Comparing the radiating center of a UHF panel or slot antenna vs. the radiating center of the channel 8 turnstile currently in use.)

The WVUE/WYES "twins", a poor scan of an Aug 2, 1985 Instamatic print http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/856i11a.jpg
The plot of ground that they (and their guy anchors) are on is not more than a few acres and is CLOSE to residential housing http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/851307.jpg which H. Katrina flooded with 6-7 feet of water.

I know this doesn't matter as respects allotments, but I doubt anyone in Fond du Lac depends on or will even be looking for WWAZ.

None of the Citadel fill-in translators are co-located at their parents' main tower sites. Citadel, forever cheap.

They couldn't even do 15kW for these translators?

I know this doesn't matter as respects allotments, but I doubt anyone in Fond du Lac depends on or will even be looking for WWAZ.
They were pretty much "North Milwaukee" at their old site. This just seals the deal ... and being off the air analog for over a year and off the air digital since the beginning of the year I agree that Fond du Lac "viewers" probably don't care.

The WVUE/WYES "twins", a poor scan of an Aug 2, 1985 Instamatic print http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/856i11a.jpg
The plot of ground that they (and their guy anchors) are on is not more than a few acres and is CLOSE to residential housing http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/851307.jpg which H. Katrina flooded with 6-7 feet of water.

I think that second picture is the base of WDSU's tower. It still looks just like that (about 6 feet from the curb of a residential street)!

WDSU, WWL, and WVUE/WYES all have towers in residential areas. WWL's and WDSU's towers both have guy wires that actually pass over the roofs of houses and are anchored on the property line between houses! :eek:

It's all a function of rather loose zoning laws throughout southeast Louisiana back when they were built.

I think that second picture is the base of WDSU's tower. It still looks just like that (about 6 feet from the curb of a residential street)!

WDSU, WWL, and WVUE/WYES all have towers in residential areas. WWL's and WDSU's towers both have guy wires that actually pass over the roofs of houses and are anchored on the property line between houses! :eek:

It's all a function of rather loose zoning laws throughout southeast Louisiana back when they were built.

It happens more than you think with even guy wires running over major highways.

It happens more than you think with even guy wires running over major highways.

Good thing that it doesn't freeze in New Orleans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBp2QYOIbc

Here are some more of my NOLA photos from Aug 1985. http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/wtfda85.htm in context. H. Katrina flooded out the WDSU TL site. I also took a photo of the courtyard near the WDSU place on Royal Street (which was a feature on a June 1960 reception verification that I'd gotten from them).

The next June at my High School Class 20th Reunion a classmate who'd been an FBI agent once stationed in NOLA told me about the lack of zoning there.

The WVUE/WYES "twins", a poor scan of an Aug 2, 1985 Instamatic print http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/856i11a.jpg
The plot of ground that they (and their guy anchors) are on is not more than a few acres and is CLOSE to residential housing http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/851307.jpg which H. Katrina flooded with 6-7 feet of water.

LOL, Pat, I can't do anything original here!

I was reading the above post, and remembered visiting WYES/WVUE at WTFDA '85.
I also shot a picture of the towers with my Instamatic X-25!

They [Citadel Communications] couldn't even do 15kW for these translators?Well, they could, but the point for them doesn't appear to be power -- it's getting that power into the market's "big city" where a lot of folks are going to be using indoor antennas. That's probably why every one of these proposed translators is actually in "the city" rather than at the market's traditional antenna farm.

I just got back from doing something I've been wanting to do for awhile.

A New Orleans "TV Tower Tour". I visited each tower (as close as I could get, for many, that was pretty close) and took lots of pictures.

I'll be working on a web page of the "tower tour" with lots of annotated pictures and post a link here when I'm done. Probably by the end of the weekend.

I just got back from doing something I've been wanting to do for awhile.

A New Orleans "TV Tower Tour". I visited each tower (as close as I could get, for many, that was pretty close) and took lots of pictures.

I'll be working on a web page of the "tower tour" with lots of annotated pictures and post a link here when I'm done. Probably by the end of the weekend.

I love what you are doing, I have a bunch of tower pictures on my Photobucket (http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s129/gjvrieze/)....
I have been up next to (3) 2,000fts at this point and all I come away thinking, is that I want to go up there, 150ft AGL is not enough for me:)

Quick and dirty. I'll be putting the spit an polish on it in the next few days. There may even be a few misspellings.

Very few DMA's can claim that one of the TV transmitting towers is accessible only by boat!! And, for many years, that was the tower of WNOL, which was our FOX affiliate at the time. (It's now KGLA's tower - Telemundo - and WNOL is the CW affiliate).

So, without further ado: Fish Man's New Orleans TV tower tour! (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour.html)

Enjoy!

For those into towers, check out www.fybush.com. He highlights different tower sites every week.

So, without further ado: Fish Man's New Orleans TV tower tour! (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour.html)


Thanks for the virtual tour! Great pics and commentary. It's amazing that Tribune is once again risking flooding, but maybe their building is watertight, like a submarine. I kind of doubt it, however. :D

Tower sites in swamps and guy wires over homes. Makes perfect sense! ;)

One of these days, I hope to take a road trip to Mt. Wilson (LA), but it doesn't look like the easiest drive. San Diego has a couple towers that are easily accessed (KGTV and KFMB). KGTV is self supported, but KFMB is guyed. If the KFMB tower was much higher than 87m, the guys would probably be getting close to homes. As it is, they are close to a fire station (though KGTV is closer to it - see 2nd pic).

For those into towers, check out www.fybush.com. He highlights different tower sites every week.

For FishMan...here's Scott's only page on NOLA (pre-Katrina, posted afterwards):

http://www.fybush.com/sites/2005/site-050902.html

Once I had a little sleep, I fixed a few spelling and grammar errors. I also tweaked some of the photos for better clarity.

http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour.html

Once I had a little sleep, I fixed a few spelling and grammar errors. I also tweaked some of the photos for better clarity.

http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour.html

Super tour. :) Our 1985 group was supposed to get to a few other sites (like WTIX AM, which I used to listen to a lot in the early 1960's), but it took longer to "find" some than expected. Approaching WVUE/WYES a few wrong turns nto cul-de-sacs were made. This was all in the afternoon. The morning had been spent at the WRNO and WNOL downtown studios, lunch at the converted Jax Brewery, followed by wanderings thru Jackson Square, St. Louis Cathedral, along Bourbon St., etc - all hot and muggy. Our two-car carvan eventually quit and headed back from Chalmette via ferry (next to an oil refinery) to our host's place in Marrero. (Our hotel was in Harvey.)

The WRNO shortwave site was not far from his house (and often caused a lot of RFI there), and it was dusk when we got there. Later than night we all heard the news about the Delta L-1011 crash at DFW. With wind shear being cited as the cause, all became a little edgy of flying out of MSY in two days recalling the Jul 1982 Kenner crash culprit. (There were storms around, but the weather at Houston Hobby proved more intense.:eek:)

So, without further ado: Fish Man's New Orleans TV tower tour! (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour.html)
Enjoy!

Thanks for the tour! I enjoyed the journey and the look at all of the towers around the NOLA area.

I continue to post photos of the on-going antenna project at Sutro Tower in San Francisco on my Sutro site:
http://www.larrykenney.com/sutrotwr.html

Larry
SF

So, without further ado: Fish Man's New Orleans TV tower tour! (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour.html)

Enjoy I did. Thanks for posting.

If you've not seen them, here are the photos I took of the WMTV/WBUW new tower construction (http://vidiot.com/TVTower.html). There are 17 pages.

...Approaching WVUE/WYES a few wrong turns nto cul-de-sacs were made...

In 2009 GPS was my friend.

Without GPS (and some images from Google Earth) I'd have been less than positive I'd even identified each tower correctly. ;)

Enjoy I did. Thanks for posting.

If you've not seen them, here are the photos I took of the WMTV/WBUW new tower construction (http://vidiot.com/TVTower.html). There are 17 pages.

Very cool photos!

I'll go through all 17 pages later this evening.

In 2009 GPS was my friend.

Without GPS (and some images from Google Earth) I'd have been less than positive I'd even identified each tower correctly. ;)

While our host (a long-time resident, if not native) of the area had made visitation arrangements with all of the facilities it soon became obvious that he'd not done any recent scouting on some of them to determine the quickest access route into them. Even so, no one (if anyone in there) at the WDSU site wanted to answer a knock on the door - the only TL that we went to which had its call prominently on their building. It wasn't until after H. Katrina that I myself had a clear idea of just where we'd been that long afternoon:o I certainly didn't realize at the time that some of it was on The Battle of 1815 turf.

I've some less-dramatic indoor photos of various pieces of RF plumbing at WGNO, et al. It was nice to be at the foot of the tower where their Ch 26 signal had often begun its 500+ mile journey to here (and zero-beat KRIV in Houston in the process). We were told that you almost needed USCG permission to get out to the WNOL stick.

I'm tempted to create a page on RabbitEars that links to all these amazing tower photos. Great pics, all!

- Trip

While our host (a long-time resident, if not native) of the area had made visitation arrangements with all of the facilities it soon became obvious that he'd not done any recent scouting on some of them to determine the quickest access route into them. Even so, no one (if anyone in there) at the WDSU site wanted to answer a knock on the door - the only TL that we went to which had its call prominently on their building. It wasn't until after H. Katrina that I myself had a clear idea of just where we'd been that long afternoon:o I certainly didn't realize at the time that some of it was on The Battle of 1815 turf.

I've some less-dramatic indoor photos of various pieces of RF plumbing at WGNO, et al. It was nice to be at the foot of the tower where their Ch 26 signal had often begun its 500+ mile journey to here (and zero-beat KRIV in Houston in the process). We were told that you almost needed USCG permission to get out to the WNOL stick.

Starting on page 24 of this document. (http://www.dielectric.com/broadcast/pdf/Design%20and%20Field%20Results%20of%20Circulators.pdf) Is a schematic of the combiner that was used to combine WGNO analog and digital and WNOL analog and digital before Katrina hit. (4 transmitters into one antenna). The pages that follow that have some nice photos of the transmitters and their plumbing.

The document in general is full of neat recent equipment pics.

It happens more than you think with even guy wires running over major highways.

Good thing that it doesn't freeze in New Orleans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBp2QYOIbc

Here in Atlanta, the big WSB tower is surrounded by residential. I don't think any of the houses are under the guy wires, although it wouldn't surprise me.

But back in the early 90's, they ran a highway through there, and UNDER those guy wires. Even though ice storms are rare here, the concrete bidness lobby got the state to require a huge shelter over the highway, an open-sided tunnel really, where the highway passed under the guy wires. I pass through it daily and it stands as a monument to how thoroughly corrupted our state government is here, both when run by the Democrats and now even more so run by the Republicans. Yay!

Ice storms hit here about once every 5 years, the ice is typically gone within hours, and everyone stays cowering inside their house at literally the first hint of snow or ice, so, yeah, that's a real important piece of civil engineering ...

But I'm not bitter.

Starting on page 24 of this document. (http://www.dielectric.com/broadcast/pdf/Design%20and%20Field%20Results%20of%20Circulators.pdf) Is a schematic of the combiner that was used to combine WGNO analog and digital and WNOL analog and digital before Katrina hit. (4 transmitters into one antenna). The pages that follow that have some nice photos of the transmitters and their plumbing.

The document in general is full of neat recent equipment pics.

They must have a lot more square footage in the WGNO TL building now vs 1985 when they just had to worry about Ch 26 NTSC. It seemed that the tower base was only a few yards around the side from the door - with a wide, thick copper grounding strap emerging from the earth at the edge of the concrete pad. I should have used up another frame on that, but those were the days of 24/36-exp reels of Tri-X in my Pentax K-1000 35-m SLR:(

Only one VHF nightmare tonight, WMTW wants a fill-in translator on channel 26 in Portland.

- Trip

Only one VHF nightmare tonight, WMTW wants a fill-in translator on channel 26 in Portland.
That is interesting since it comes in pretty reliably here in Milford, NH 85 miles away.

But back in the early 90's, they ran a highway through there, and UNDER those guy wires. Even though ice storms are rare here, the concrete bidness lobby got the state to require a huge shelter over the highway, an open-sided tunnel really, where the highway passed under the guy wires. I pass through it daily and it stands as a monument to how thoroughly corrupted our state government is here, both when run by the Democrats and now even more so run by the Republicans. Yay!

Ice storms hit here about once every 5 years, the ice is typically gone within hours, and everyone stays cowering inside their house at literally the first hint of snow or ice, so, yeah, that's a real important piece of civil engineering ...

Ice storms are just slightly less rare (but hardly common) in the North Carolina piedmont, but that's exactly what took down the towers of WPTF (now WRDU) and WRAL in December 1989. The collapses occurred the morning after the storm as the ice melted unevenly and put undue stress on both sticks. Of course, these towers were in a rural area and no one was hurt, but imagine WSB's tower coming down in like fashion.

I guess it's the old question of to what degree you plan (and spend) for a disaster that has a very small chance of ever happening. Of course, the "tunnel" you describe might (might) protect motorists from chunks of falling ice, but would be of little help if the whole shebang came down on top of it! :eek:

That is interesting since it comes in pretty reliably here in Milford, NH 85 miles away.

Comes in reliably for you (at that distance, I'm assuming you have a decent outdoor antenna), but as Trip has already mentioned, these "fill-in" translators are geared towards urban areas closer to the transmitter, where indoor antennas, multipath effects, etc. are more common. The problems hi-VHF DTVs are facing are primarily "in town," not out in the sticks. (As opposed to lo-VHF, which seems to be problematic for DTV just about anywhere...)

It's kind of like why the NYC VHFs for years maintained UHF translators on the ESB after moving their transmitters to the WTC. Many viewers farther up the island had severe multipath problems after the move. So, the notion of a translator in a station's own city of license isn't unheard of, even back in the analog era.

Here in Atlanta, the big WSB tower is surrounded by residential. I don't think any of the houses are under the guy wires, although it wouldn't surprise me.

But back in the early 90's, they ran a highway through there, and UNDER those guy wires. Even though ice storms are rare here, the concrete bidness lobby got the state to require a huge shelter over the highway, an open-sided tunnel really, where the highway passed under the guy wires. I pass through it daily and it stands as a monument to how thoroughly corrupted our state government is here, both when run by the Democrats and now even more so run by the Republicans. Yay!

Ice storms hit here about once every 5 years, the ice is typically gone within hours, and everyone stays cowering inside their house at literally the first hint of snow or ice, so, yeah, that's a real important piece of civil engineering ...

But I'm not bitter.

It isn't the ice storm that is the issue. It is the melting that occurs AFTER the storm is where the concern is. Depending on temperatures, it could take several days for the ice to completely come off the tower. That means during daylight hours for a few hours over several days, you could have ice chunks raining down on the highway. Not all the ice comes off at the same time. It happens as the air warms from the ground up usually. I have seen it be warm at the top than the ground so your ice shower starts at the top and moves down the tower.

Or you can have ice with no ice storm. In 1994 we were doing some electrical work at our tower. We were to have a freezing rain the night before. I told the workers if they got there before I did and they saw the tower glistening, just go back. Ice was on the tower. We got there and all looked well. No ice on the ground or up the tower, or so I thought. About 11am I got a call from the studio that one of the houses close by was being showered on with ice. I looked out and didn't see any ice falling. I walked out and looked up and didn't see any ice and then, off the antenna only I saw some ice sheets fly off in the wind and land about 3000 ft away, on a house. A cloud had been by and in the freezing temps and the moisture had collected as ice on the antenna and the wind picked up and as the sun melted the ice off the antenna, it flew and was landing on just ONE house on the road over. It does happen.

Enjoy I did. Thanks for posting.

If you've not seen them, here are the photos I took of the WMTV/WBUW new tower construction (http://vidiot.com/TVTower.html). There are 17 pages.

Whew!

I finally got through that gallery taking my time somewhat.

It was awesome! :)

The problems hi-VHF DTVs are facing are primarily "in town," not out in the sticks.
Interesting I did not realize that. I had assume it was primarily a power problem limiting range.

We are not having any difficulty with the two NH VHF-hi stations WMUR and WENH. But as you said we have a directional rooftop antenna.

Interesting I did not realize that. I had assume it was primarily a power problem limiting range.

That's the popular opinion, and it's about 25% true.

VHF signals don't penetrate inside buildings as well as UHF.
Most converter boxes were built without FM filters.
The majority of new "HD" indoor antennas are UHF only.
Converter boxes are hard to rescan because they can keep old UHF tuning data in memory.
Stations wishing to try Mobile TV know that UHF will outperform VHF due to smaller antenna size on hand held devices.

Enjoy I did. Thanks for posting.

If you've not seen them, here are the photos I took of the WMTV/WBUW new tower construction (http://vidiot.com/TVTower.html). There are 17 pages.

Looked through all of them, nice pictures:)

That's the popular opinion, and it's about 25% true.

VHF signals don't penetrate inside buildings as well as UHF.
Most converter boxes were built without FM filters.
The majority of new "HD" indoor antennas are UHF only.
Converter boxes are hard to rescan because they can keep old UHF tuning data in memory.
Stations wishing to try Mobile TV know that UHF will outperform VHF due to smaller antenna size on hand held devices.

We did some testing of CECB's a week or so back and found that all the ones we tested worked as well on VHF as UHF and the sensitivity of the boxes were pretty uniform box to box. What we also found was that VHF power levels for receiver reception were an average of 10db DOWN from the UHF stations when the VHF and UHF were on the same tower with the VHF on top and the UHF just below and the UHF based on the VHF coverage.

And yes, there IS a power issue on VHF, not just building penetration. Stations who received initial VHF allocations in 1997 received HIGHER power levels than stations who received post transition allocations. This due to the moving target called station to station interference the FCC kept redefining every 2 or so years. In my stations case, stations with pre-transition allocations within 250 miles received power levels between 30 and 45kw in VHF high. Stations who received post transition (and remained on their analog channels post transition) were all BELOW 15kw. In 2005 when we first looked at a VHF power level, it was around 20kw. in 2007 due to changing rules, it had dropped to 15.1 kw. When the CP was issued in March of last year, it was 11.5 kw. Only thing changed was the interference rules.

Apples and oranges were used to set the power levels from 1997 to 2008. The FCC has yet to acknowledge that fact and there is the issue in a nutshell.

VHF power levels for receiver reception were an average of 10db DOWN from the UHF stations when the VHF and UHF were on the same tower with the VHF on top and the UHF just below and the UHF based on the VHF coverage.
Wow that is a huge difference. Doesn't say much for LR modeling accuracy.

The TVFool maps are a lot more accurate. I wish those were used by the FCC instead of this ridiculous stuff they do now.

- Trip

We did some testing of CECB's a week or so back and found that all the ones we tested worked as well on VHF as UHF and the sensitivity of the boxes were pretty uniform box to box. What we also found was that VHF power levels for receiver reception were an average of 10db DOWN from the UHF stations when the VHF and UHF were on the same tower with the VHF on top and the UHF just below and the UHF based on the VHF coverage.

And yes, there IS a power issue on VHF, not just building penetration. Stations who received initial VHF allocations in 1997 received HIGHER power levels than stations who received post transition allocations. This due to the moving target called station to station interference the FCC kept redefining every 2 or so years. In my stations case, stations with pre-transition allocations within 250 miles received power levels between 30 and 45kw in VHF high. Stations who received post transition (and remained on their analog channels post transition) were all BELOW 15kw. In 2005 when we first looked at a VHF power level, it was around 20kw. in 2007 due to changing rules, it had dropped to 15.1 kw. When the CP was issued in March of last year, it was 11.5 kw. Only thing changed was the interference rules.

Apples and oranges were used to set the power levels from 1997 to 2008. The FCC has yet to acknowledge that fact and there is the issue in a nutshell.

Good info, foxeng. I cannot believe how slow the FCC has been to actually deal with this issue after 2+ months out from the final transition. Issuing STAs for the UHF counterpart of many stations to fire back up is not really a solution, power levels should be there first thought, when people who could get the UHF DT, cannot get the VHF. I have read a lot online from various sources, and I really do not get why they did not go with the (roughly) 1/5 of peak analog power is digital mean rule that was used with UHF....

Around my market, KTTC is running 26kW, and I hear tons of complaints about them dropping out depending on the weather. (even in the 15mile range with decent outdoor antennas, lightening is really bad) I am after the much larger market (Twin Cities) and at 72miles, RF channels 9 (30kW) and 11 (27.1kW) have plenty of signal strength, but any little thing, causes them to drop out (night is great, but daytime blows)

The TVFool maps are a lot more accurate. I wish those were used by the FCC instead of this ridiculous stuff they do now.

- Trip

The TVFool maps are created by running individual propagation calculations to a grid of receive locations. The OET-69 method for determining interference starts with running individual propagation calculations to a grid of receive locations for each of the stations under study. The signal/interference ratios are calculated for each grid point. In other words, it's THE SAME THING.

Now, the issue is really what foxeng wrote - the changing rules with regards to how to use the S/I calculations.

The TVFool maps are created by running individual propagation calculations to a grid of receive locations. The OET-69 method for determining interference starts with running individual propagation calculations to a grid of receive locations for each of the stations under study. The signal/interference ratios are calculated for each grid point. In other words, it's THE SAME THING.

This map:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=80&q=call%3dwdbj%26type%3dD

Looks nothing like this map:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1318598.html

And yet one of them is used by the FCC as though it was a 100% accurate representation of where coverage can be expected. The other one is created by a non-FCC website.

- Trip

This map:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=80&q=call%3dwdbj%26type%3dD

Looks nothing like this map:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1318598.html

And yet one of them is used by the FCC as though it was a 100% accurate representation of where coverage can be expected. The other one is created by a non-FCC website.



The TV Fool map as linked doesn't show any contours (at least not in my browser) -- just a Google map of the general region.

The TV Fool map as linked doesn't show any contours (at least not in my browser) -- just a Google map of the general region.

If should load the color plot for WDBJ after a few seconds over laid on Google Earth.

Coverage maps are like automobile fuel efficiency numbers -- "your mileage may vary" -- and should be taken with skepticism. They are based on theory -- at this power, antenna height and pattern, etc., a receiver with an antenna at such-and-such a height should theoretically have a signal level of X. They do not take terrain into account (if they did, then in hilly/mountainous areas the contours should look like an irregularly-shaped piece of swiss cheese, holes and all), propagation enhancement and anomalies (even in areas where such conditions are frequent enough to hamper regular viewing), or for that matter what I call "urban topography." In any populous area, even a smaller town, your reception is going to vary based on your antenna location, other nearby buildings and structures (and their component material thereof), trees and other vegetation, the ambient RF environment, etc. I believe there are more than a few cases in which you could place identical receivers with identical antennas and feedlines at identical heights up at 2 houses right next to each other and, with marginal or weak DTV signals, get different results.

That said, of course the FCC can't take all of those factors into consideration (if there were even a computer model with enough detailed data to do it), although they could and should at least take terrain into account (I laugh whenever I see a station in a mountainous region with those nice, circular or ovoid contours -- gimme a break). But they need to be more aware and proactive about dealing with the real-life shortcomings of their forecasts and predictions, and address them more quickly and proactively.

KCWX-DT-5's verbose and teeny TOH ident as a multi-DMA http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/kcwx-dt-5.2zb.jpg station. With ATSC PSIP we DXing types no longer have to rely on such fleeting, near-invisible things. That is, providing it displays their call letters and not some cryptic net/virtual thingie like Fox8.

If should load the color plot for WDBJ after a few seconds over laid on Google Earth.

OK...got it...took longer than a few seconds on my slow-ass connection. :mad:

Really amplifies the point in my last post about terrain -- the TV Fool map with its color ranges is way more in touch with the real world, and infinitely more useful in determining coverage than those simple FCC circles.

This map:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=80&q=call%3dwdbj%26type%3dD

Looks nothing like this map:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1318598.html

And yet one of them is used by the FCC as though it was a 100% accurate representation of where coverage can be expected. The other one is created by a non-FCC website.
They've got to pick some standard ... even if it is the wrong standard. It would be hard to run interference studies based on the extremely accurate point by point coverage maps. If the accurate map has holes can the next station over fill those holes as long as they skip over where the first station has coverage?

The FCC treats all stations the same. Calculate a profile along radials and find out the average distance the signal is expected to go and protect it. Use the scattergraphs for marketing and helping viewers.

Regarding evaluation of interference and/or coverage area regarding submission of applications(and attached exhibits/etc) for Construction permits/etc, I seem to recall(?) reading somewhere in the FCC rules that stations have the option to choose between LR (per OET 69) and FCC's contour methodology -- The latter Which doesn't take irregular terrain into account --- Only a generic "average" terrain figure, along with the TX antenna HAAT, and of course other details such as antenna pattern, if directional ....

Regardless, I think the contour maps available on FCC site (TV query) are based entirely on FCC's Contour Methodology .....

Trip, the propagation model used for the city-grade and noise-limiting contours only considers terrain used to calculate HAAT (16 km). Terrain shielding beyond this distance is not used. So, the plots you see via FM or TV Query are like those submitted in applications - a regulatory artifact, or statistical estimation, developed when computing resources were expensive. They were never meant to reflect reception conditions in detail. The Oet-69 interference calculation process, which was used in those gain/loss plots put out a while back, and the TVFool plots use a different propagation model that supports detailed reception analysis. The FCC has explicitly rejected applications in the past that have used terrain shielding to support short-spacing.

Look at the difference between TVFool plots and TV Query contours for Mt. Wilson sites.

Here in Bakersfield 3ABN has applied for a class A digital station on channel 7 with 2000+ watts. They currently have analog signals on both 8 and 24 (it seems like 8 is off the air about half the time). They have applications for digital on 15, 17, 32, and now 7! I think that 3ABN being on 7 would cause interference to KAIL Fresno, also on 7. The coverage map shows that the LP7 would reach Delano, McFarland, and Wasco in north Kern County, areas which a good rooftop antenna used to be able to receive Fresno stations before all the cochannel LPs came on. It seems like the FCC deliberately puts LPs on these cochannels to prevent anyone from watching out of market stations. If I were the owner of KAIL I would definately protest this application, and if it did get on the air I would apply for LP45 in Visalia and put whatever on it just to prevent anyone in Kings and Tulare counties from watching Bakersfield MYTV affiliate KUVI. I think forgetting about 7 and flash cutting on 8 would be better. The closest full power RF8s are KSBW in Salinas and KFMB in San Diego, way too far for any interference issues. Digital LP8 in Los Angeles shouldn't be an issue either. The only possible interference issue might be with low power analog 8 (planning to flash cut to digital) in Visalia, but that would be much less of an issue that interfering with full power KAIL Fresno.

I thought the power limit for a VHF digital LP was 300 watts (or maybe 900). Could 3ABN possiby be granted 2000 watts for a VHF digital LP? Are class As allowed more power? I wonder how easy reception would be for 2000 watts on 7 in the Bakersfield metro area.

When they rejected the complaint filed by an AVS member about WDKY moving from 4 to 31, they claimed that because he was within the contour, he would get coverage. Of course, off the in the mountains, this is utter crap, even if moving to 31 was the correct decision. The FCC only protects coverage within the contour, even if there's plenty of signal outside that contour.

I hate the way the FCC treats their predictions like it's the gospel even in the face of real world testing. It results in overprotection of some stations and horrible short-spacing in others.

- Trip

DTV Notes
FCC Continues Working On DTV-Related Reception Issues
Solutions include moving stations from VHF to UHF channel positions, boosting power
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/17/2009 5:42:40 PM EDT

The FCC continues to work through what it characterizes as a "limited number" of DTV-related reception issues.

That included proposing to grant relief to a network-owned station in one of the nation's largest markets--WLS-TV Chicago, which requested that it move from VHF channel 7 to UHF channel 44. The ABC station cited continuing reception problems, including the "urban canyon" effect in which tall buildings and walls in high-rises reduce reception.

The FCC concluded in an Aug. 12 notice of proposed rulemaking that the move is in the public interest and gave commenters a total of 25 days to weigh in.

The week before, the FCC proposed granting Grey Television's request that it move KKTV from VHF channel 10 in Colorado Springs to ch. 49 to boost its coverage by about a million people and eliminate interference it was experiencing.

The FCC continues to work with what it continues to characterize as a limited number of reception issues in a "mop-up" operation after the switch to digital on June 12, 2009.

Solutions include moving stations from VHF to UHF channel positions, boosting power, and in at least one case--KNMD Santa Fe--moving from one VHF channel position to another to gain viewers in mostly rural areas. WLS got FCC permission to boost power, but that was apparently not sufficient relief.

The FCC's willingness to boost power and move stations suggest to some tacit acknowledgement that the FCC lowballed the DTV power limits and is having to play catch-up. A commission spokesperson had no comment.

The FCC also issued a notice of proposed rulemaking last Friday (Aug. 14) on a request by WVUE New Orleans for a fix of its DTV reception problems.

The FCC has estimated it was working with two or three-dozen stations on reception issues. That is out of the nearly 1,800 stations that made the switch to all-digital.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/327804-FCC_Continues_Working_On_DTV_Related_Reception_Issues.php