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

Please, stop right there. That is unfair criticism that comes from a lack of understanding of what different models are used for. You are comparing individual receive location data to an allotment model meant to abstract local recieve location variability.

Consider the value used for the contours: F(50,90). That's the field strength available to 50% of nearby locations at least 90% of the time. This is not a point-to-point calculation because the analysis is for an area. Will all receive locations get service within a area delineated by particular contour? No. These contours are meant to: 1) demonstrate satisfaction of community-of-license coverage requirements, and 2) delineate an area entitled to interference-free reception (NOT completely describe areas where stations can be received.)

Allotment decisions are not made based on individual receiver conditions.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-144A1.pdf

"WKDY [sic] also submits contour coverage maps showing that, while Mr. Dobson’s community of Manchester is outside the Grade B contour of WDKY-TV and therefore, is not predicted to presently receive a viewable over-the-air analog signal, it is located within the predicted 41 dBu contour of the proposed WDKY-DT operations on channel 31. Accordingly, Mr. Dobson will continue to receive a signal from WDKY-DT on the requested channel 31."

The FCC said it, I didn't. If you ask Mr. Dobson, and he monitors the Lexington thread, you'll find that he has not received WDKY-DT since June 12.

If the FCC is going to claim it, I don't see what's so unfair about the criticism.

- Trip

Let me add, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying, I do understand the differences, it just seems like the FCC doesn't. If that was the case, they would have said something like, "While it is true that Mr. Dobson will lose service due to local terrain, this move remains in the public interest because..." instead of trying to claim that he'll receive the signal just because the suspiciously round coverage contour happens to enclose him.

- Trip

"Accordingly, Mr. Dobson will continue to receive a signal from WDKY-DT on the requested channel 31."

Point of semantics -- depends on your definition of "receive." He may still receive a signal, but not be able to decode it. And that signal level may have been sufficient for acceptable, if not perfect analog reception, while clearly below the decoding threshold of his ATSC tuner.

Let me add, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying, I do understand the differences, it just seems like the FCC doesn't. If that was the case, they would have said something like, "While it is true that Mr. Dobson will lose service due to local terrain, this move remains in the public interest because..." instead of trying to claim that he'll receive the signal just because the suspiciously round coverage contour happens to enclose him.

But that admission would fly in the face of all the propaganda that was shoved down the throats of the American public during the transition/converter box publicity campaign. DTV is better, they said; just hook it up to your present antenna, they said. It wasn't until the very end of the campaign, by which time these reception issues were becoming very apparent, even before the final channel switch, that a small handful of PSAs even remotely hinted that some viewers may receive fewer channels, or have to upgrade their antenna, etc., etc.

The FCC does many things very well. Admitting they were wrong is not one of them.

Point of semantics -- depends on your definition of "receive." He may still receive a signal, but not be able to decode it. And that signal level may have been sufficient for acceptable, if not perfect analog reception, while clearly below the decoding threshold of his ATSC tuner.

The definition of these contours should be where one would reasonably be able to expect to decode the signal. What use is the contour if it shows areas that get a signal, just not one they can use?

But that admission would fly in the face of all the propaganda that was shoved down the throats of the American public during the transition/converter box publicity campaign. DTV is better, they said; just hook it up to your present antenna, they said. It wasn't until the very end of the campaign, by which time these reception issues were becoming very apparent, even before the final channel switch, that a small handful of PSAs even remotely hinted that some viewers may receive fewer channels, or have to upgrade their antenna, etc., etc.

The FCC does many things very well. Admitting they were wrong is not one of them.

He never got any service before the digital signal showed up on channel 4, so if you compare it to the analog signal it's replacing, it's not like he's actually losing anything by the FCC's definition. I can phrase it for them:

"Stations sometimes built out alternate facilities during the digital transition that prevented reception for some while creating new reception for others. In the post-transition environment, the goal is to replicate analog coverage as much as possible. As such, some people who did receive service they had not previously received during the transition may lose the temporary pre-transition service."

- Trip

WPXD's channel change from 31 to 50 was approved.

- Trip

Let me add, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying, I do understand the differences, it just seems like the FCC doesn't. If that was the case, they would have said something like, "While it is true that Mr. Dobson will lose service due to local terrain, this move remains in the public interest because..." instead of trying to claim that he'll receive the signal just because the suspiciously round coverage contour happens to enclose him.

- Trip

The FCC does understand, I believe. In this case, the map submitted with the CP for channel 31 shows Manchester outside of the noise-limited contour, and I can't find the exhibits submitted by WDKY in support of the statements in DA 09-144 that would show otherwise. Either somebody can't read a map or can't write clearly. The reasoning should have been that since post-transition DTV facilities need only replicate Grade B contour coverage, Mr. Dobson's concerns are secondary to viewers within WDKY's service area. (NOTE: the map submitted for WDKY's ch. 4 DTV shows Manchester inside the noise-limited contour.)

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.
Speaking of KCWX, it seems like the FCC is dragging its feet on the petitions they have submitted...

The FCC does understand, I believe. In this case, the map submitted with the CP for channel 31 shows Manchester outside of the noise-limited contour, and I can't find the exhibits submitted by WDKY in support of the statements in DA 09-144 that would show otherwise. Either somebody can't read a map or can't write clearly.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520190285

Page 10.

Their STA map doesn't enclose it, but the CP map does. In the STA map, the line crosses right through the town.

CP Map: http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1299072.html

It's the little city to the east of London.

The reasoning should have been that since post-transition DTV facilities need only replicate Grade B contour coverage, Mr. Dobson's concerns are secondary to viewers within WDKY's service area.

Agreed.

(NOTE: the map submitted for WDKY's ch. 4 DTV shows Manchester inside the noise-limited contour.)

And he received it on channel 4.

- Trip

Dang, I was looking at the wrong Manchester! The right town is enclosed within the ch. 31 noise-limited and the ch. 4 principle-community contours. therefore, the statement that you objected to is correct as far as allotments are concerned. I still refer back to what is being plotted: F(50,90). The closer to the contour line, the higher the probability to fall below the value. I should know, as I live either right at, just outside, or just inside the noise limited countour for DC DTV stations. My actual reception conditions closely, but not exactly, resemble what the various plots suggest.

And I live outside the predicted contours of every Poor Mountain station except WBRA and get perfect reception on every Poor Mountain station except WBRA. And yet if WBRA was to try to move to UHF at 1000 kW like they should, the FCC would complain that their contour is shrinking even though most people can't even receive the channel 3 signal. The FCC completely ignores real world results in favor of their predictions.

If the contour maps can't be used to predict reception, then the FCC should not use them to predict reception and should not say that if someone's inside the circle, they'll get reception, which is exactly what they did in the case of WDKY. I get sick of hearing "Well, you're outside the contour, so you shouldn't be watching anyway."

- 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.



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
It would appear that the FCC is only working with the stations that actually have the budget to do something about reception problems. It seems like just about every market has a problem station so that there really should be a couple hundred stations working through DTV-related reception issues.

Trip,

Is WPXD staying where they are now, or move to Southfield?

I get sick of hearing "Well, you're outside the contour, so you shouldn't be watching anyway."

Um, so if you are outside the contours of any station, you're not supposed to be watching OTA at all, right? (I think that was just a poor choice of words -- probably "you shouldn't be watching" should have been "if you can't watch, you have no reason to complain.")

When dealing with the station, and not the FCC, there's also the disconnect between signal coverage and DMAs, which obviously don't match at all (RF signals do not respect man-made boundaries). There was a thread on another board here recently where someone here in Florida inquiring about a WTOG (CW) translator app was brusquely told by the engineer that he shouldn't be bothering them, because he's in Orlando's DMA and should be watching WKCF. I'm sure there are many situations in which the best reception of a particular network is from an affiliate outside the viewer's DMA -- so you should ignore or brush off their comments or complaints because they're not "supposed" to be watching your station?

propagation enhancement and anomalies...

I've noticed an interesting phenomenon regarding propagation enhancement and anomalies on reception of the Sacramento/Stockton, CA stations transmitting from Walnut Grove, 62 miles from my home. I'm using an Antenna Craft Y-10-7-13 for VHF and a Channel Master 4228 for UHF, and the signals have to pass over a 1000 foot hill that's about 25 miles from me.

One UHF station, KMAX, transmitting on channel 21, is always strong enough to produce a picture, but the other UHF stations on 25, 26, 35, 46 and 48 and the two VHF stations on 9 and 10 are all at the cliff edge. Sometimes they produce solid pictures; sometimes they're completely below the cliff at 13 to 14 dB SNR. (There's a local low power station on 40, so that one has no chance.)

Here's the interesting thing about their reception... when the VHF stations are in, the UHF stations are usually out, and vis-versa... when the UHF stations are in, the VHF stations are out. Is this a commonly known factor in signal characteristics or something unique to this area?

Larry
SF

And I live outside the predicted contours of every Poor Mountain station except WBRA and get perfect reception on every Poor Mountain station except WBRA.
- Trip

Your TV fool report shows plenty of signal on all channels.

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d23c5e93df1bd09

If you really can't get WBRA it has nothing to do with FCC channel allocations.

Have you forgotten that there is an amplitude problem with WBRA that you documented two months ago?

And I live outside the predicted contours of every Poor Mountain station except WBRA and get perfect reception on every Poor Mountain station except WBRA. And yet if WBRA was to try to move to UHF at 1000 kW like they should, the FCC would complain that their contour is shrinking even though most people can't even receive the channel 3 signal. The FCC completely ignores real world results in favor of their predictions.

If the contour maps can't be used to predict reception, then the FCC should not use them to predict reception and should not say that if someone's inside the circle, they'll get reception, which is exactly what they did in the case of WDKY. I get sick of hearing "Well, you're outside the contour, so you shouldn't be watching anyway."

- Trip

Trip, you're the last person I want to get in an argument with. Let me try again...

The model used for allotments does not answer "Will that house get reception?" but "Will at least half of the houses in this area get reception?" Context is important here. In the Dobson case, the FCC said that he will have signal in the allotment context, not a point-to-point context. As I pointed out earlier, terrain shielding (beyond calculating HAAT) is not part of this model, which is certainly a factor here. Trying to include far-field terrain at this point will require a huge effort to collect and analyze data without a whole lot of payoff. What would we end up with? Additional LPTV wedged in between?

Now, there is no doubt that "the FCC" understands that reception is possible beyond the service contours. However, this additional service enjoys no explicit protection and has little standing with regards to regulatory proceedings. That's what is meant by "you shouldn't be watching." Dobson's potential for watching WDKY is protected, your watching of stations beyond their service area is not.

When dealing with the station, and not the FCC, there's also the disconnect between signal coverage and DMAs, which obviously don't match at all (RF signals do not respect man-made boundaries). There was a thread on another board here recently where someone here in Florida inquiring about a WTOG (CW) translator app was brusquely told by the engineer that he shouldn't be bothering them, because he's in Orlando's DMA and should be watching WKCF. I'm sure there are many situations in which the best reception of a particular network is from an affiliate outside the viewer's DMA -- so you should ignore or brush off their comments or complaints because they're not "supposed" to be watching your station?

If you are outside a station's DMA, then you are not a target for their advertisements. The business model for local broadcasting in the cable age begat this notion.

One UHF station, KMAX, transmitting on channel 21, is always strong enough to produce a picture.

One difference between 21 and the other Sacramento stations is the vertical antenna pattern. The antenna is a Dielectric TUG-05-16/80H-2-B shown on the KMAX license and TUG-05-16/80H-1-B on KQCA. I assume that they are the same antenna. You probably know that the nomenclature means a 5 sided panel antenna sixteen bays high with 80 high power panels, and 1 or 2 feedlines. I'd guess that KMAX has the model exactly correct, and KQCA is missing a feedline, but for all practical purposes it's the same antenna. A sixteen bay antenna has more gain on the higher channels and may prevent the signal from reaching the top of the hill that's 25 miles away from you.

I've seen the same thing here. I could watch WVIT analog from Hartford, CT on channel 30, but never even detect WTIC analog on channel 61. Channel 61 was 300' higher and only .3 miles away from WVIT. The channel 61 antenna had more gain than the channel 30 antenna.

The other possibility is that KMAX has already installed their elliptically polarized antenna.

I'm sure there are many situations in which the best reception of a particular network is from an affiliate outside the viewer's DMA -- so you should ignore or brush off their comments or complaints because they're not "supposed" to be watching your station?

Stanislav, you know from our discussions in the Orlando OTA thread, but for the sake of this discussion I will add I don't get a single station from my DMA at 30 ft with the recommend gain.
Also let me add I am outside the "blue circle" on all Orlando DMA stations at 82 miles.

I am in the Orlando DMA.

But from Gainesville DMA.
ABC
CBS
PBS
FOX
CW
MyN

All Gainesville if UHF and 100% (there is a CH9 NBC in Gainesville that only runs 470 watts ERP on my radial at 37 miles, and it's hopeless)

And from Jacksonville DMA

NBC - 80% - Inside "Blue Circle" by 4 miles
ABC - 70% - Right on the "Blue Circle"
PBS - 50% - Outside "Blue Circle" by 2 miles

The stations in Jax are all VHF. So at 61 miles to a 300 meter two, 2-edge, I listed the reliability in terms of often they are usable.

If the contour maps can't be used to predict reception, then the FCC should not use them to predict reception and should not say that if someone's inside the circle, they'll get reception, which is exactly what they did in the case of WDKY. I get sick of hearing "Well, you're outside the contour, so you shouldn't be watching anyway."

- Trip

This besides VHF and impulse noise and it's related, is my single biggest complaint left with the transition.

To it appears for most of the cases I have followed more often than not.

UHF is possible beyond the "blue circle" often
VHF Hi its almost always larger than real coverage
VHF Low the circle is massively exaggerated.

I am inside the "blue circle" on two NBC VHFs, but neither of them is 100%. Mainly due to impulse noise, nightly tropo and I believe WNBW runs such low power that at times they just don't reach my house.

In the Dobson case, the FCC said that he will have signal in the allotment context, not a point-to-point context. .

While I agree that's(the "allotment" context) is probably what they "meant" ... However, I'm not sure it is really all that clear regarding the R&O and FCC's comments in the context of the comments Mr. Dobson submitted in the matter(Which, although were not technical in nature, specifically involved mention of Users in locations where terrain shielding is an issue), regarding what FCC actually said about it here in the R&O :


We also note that the predicted 41 dBu contour of the proposed operation on digital channel 31 not only encompasses the entire Grade B contour of WDKY-TV, but will also extend digital service to a number of persons, including Mr. Dobson, who do not presently receive a predicted signal from WDKY-TV.


And, Nevertheless, I suspect you would have seen something a bit different Had Mr. Dobson Submitted a Technical showing, such as utilizing L-R Modelling and involving his exact receive location .....

BTW, There was a little more than mere "speculation" involved concerning why he knew beforehand it was likely he would not be able to decode them on 31 ...

Speaking of KCWX, it seems like the FCC is dragging its feet on the petitions they have submitted...

In its gestation (1987-2000) and after its birth I'm sure that the FCC has grown weary of dealing with that "Fredericksburg" allocation. http://home.swbell.net/pjdyer/fred-2.htm Its prime investor was once the main investor in the NBA San Antonio Spurs, and, as such, in May 1987 when they drafted David Robinson he wanted the US Navy to immediately lift his obligation to serve 4 years after graduating from Annapolis (they got him after 2 years). Billionaires can get a little pushy.

The FCC could have worded it better ... "Mr Dobson is predicted to receive coverage". It was worded too strongly as a "will" receive. (A submission of LR data may have helped. Especially if he could have proven that 50,90 wasn't anywhere near close.)

But the rules are there ... and that's what we have to work within. If the rules are not good enough get them changed. I believe the FCC has already looked at ILR vs their current prediction methods. A well written and scientifically backed proposal is the only way to make a change (other than getting Congress to pass a law requiring the FCC to change or having a court overturn the FCC's calculation method).

Until then those in the industry (including the FCC) will have to just follow the rules as they stand. And those outside of the industry will get what they can whether or not they understand the system.

But the rules are there ... and that's what we have to work within.


The rules involve both what I'm calling FCC's "contour methodology" as well as Longely Rice ..... Here are some of those rules :

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/73/622/

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/73/623/

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/73/625/ (Portions of section b specifically involves what I'm calling their "contour" methodology) ...

The rules in those sections are way too extensive to quote in their entirety, but Here's a portion of one of them :


(e) DTV Service Areas. (1) The service area of a DTV station is the
geographic area within the station's noise-limited F(50,90) contour
where its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-limited
service level. The noise-limited contour is the area in which the
predicted F(50,90) field strength of the station's signal, in dB above
1 microvolt per meter (dBu) as determined using the method in section
73.625(b) exceeds the following levels (these are the levels at which
reception of DTV service is limited by noise):
dBu
Channels 2–6 28
Channels 7–13 36
Channels 14–69 41

(2) Within this contour, service is considered available at locations
where the station's signal strength, as predicted using the terrain
dependent Longley-Rice point-to-point propagation model, exceeds the
levels above.

.....

Concerning (e) (2) above and the FCC's ".... will also extend digital service to a number of persons, including Mr. Dobson, who do not presently receive a predicted signal from WDKY-TV." comment in the R&O for the WDKY channel change proceeding ....... Did they run a Longely-Rice Study for the location of the Manchester PO Box submitted with his comments ? I doubt it, but of course, noone lives in a PO Box, anyway ;) .....

As you say, I think it was a poor choice in words, and I suppose also, one could make a case that (e)(2), nor anywhere else does not specifically say service is NOT considered available if L-R doesn't predict it as available, but the "contour methodology does" ---- nevertheless, I can't resist taking a poke at a agency which has unfortunetly given us messes, and made poor decisions (IMO) such as involving BPL and involving adopting rules to allow WSD's (or TVBD's if you like) to pollute our airwaves .....

And another bit of the rules involving L-R, From the section on changes to (DTV) allotments :


..... (2) Requests filed pursuant to this paragraph must demonstrate that the
requested change would not result in more than an additional 2 percent
the population served by another station being subject to interference;
provided, however, that no new interference may be caused to any
station that already experiences interference to 10 percent or more of
its population or that would result in a station receiving interference
in excess of 10 percent of its population. The station population
values for existing NTSC service and DTV service contained in Appendix
B of the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth
Report and Order in MM Docket No. 87–268, FCC 98–24, adopted January
29, 1998, referenced in § 73.622(c), are to be used for the purposes of
determining whether a power increase or other change is permissible
under this de minimis standard. For evaluating compliance with this
requirement, interference to populations served is to be predicted
based on the procedure set forth in OET Bulletin No. 69 , including
population served within service areas determined in accordance with
section 73.622(e), consideration of whether F(50,10) undesired signals
will exceed the following desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratios,
assumed use of a directional receiving antenna, and use of the terrain
dependent Longley-Rice point-to-point propagation model.


Regarding that one ... Indeed, if you have ever browsed throuigh "interference studies" submitted by DTV stations/consulting engineers with Applications for construction permits/etc, when the "detailed output" is included, you will notice they are performed via the procudures outlined in OET bulletin #69 (with Longely-rice) .....

But of course, The contour maps/prediction of service area in any case I've come across so far (tech exhibits attached to apps for Construction permits) are performed via the "contour methodolgy" (using HAAT, not taking irregular terrain into account) per the procedures described in 73.625 (b) ...

Personally, I think that all makes sense from the perspective of interference protection among stations, and also perhaps for defining a very general guideline for a stations' Predicted service area ....

Not necessarily so much sense perhaps regarding prediction of service for any individual receive location(exception being 73.622 (e)(2), nor regarding Mr. Dobson's comments* or his particular "situation" regarding Reception of WDKY involving WDKY's channel change proceeding ... Especially perhaps given in that proceeding FCC apparently "listened to" numerous reception complaints for WDKY on 4 from Viewers submitted in the record by WDKY, Most of which did not even describe the type of receive antenna installation used (many of which AFAIK may very well have involved the use of UHF only indoor antennas, given Lexington was a UHF only analog Market ) ....

*Which were submitted merlely as an opposition to their channel change(He was simply telling FCC what he thought about it is how I read it) not I would point out as any sort of opposition to any FCC rule or procedure - I would also point out that WDKY had oppurtunity during channel elections to to get off of channel 4 without a Public comment period involved, and yet they did not/and actually elected channel 4 for post-transition operation , even though at time of channel elections, they had had several years of experience operating their DTV station on channel 4 (although first with STA), and also, conversely, had previously, I should note on an earlier occasion (2000 or 2001 as I recall, before getting a DTV station on air) had petitioned for a channel allotment change to a different UHF channel .....

As someone coming to the digital over the air party late in the game is there a semi-technical tutorial about digital station coverage area and interference mitigation? Can someone point me to a link?

I think I have a reasonable understanding of LR propagation modeling but I'm lost when it comes to how FCC determines station coverage area and interference mitigation. Reading the CFR is not exactly a page-turner.

I though I understood what was going on from Andy's TVfool site but it looks like there is another world I was totally unaware of.

What I'm curious about is how stations determine coverage area. I realize outer bound is limited by interference and economic cost. What other factors come into play?

It seems common knowledge predicted digital coverage area is optimistic and has been known to be so for years. Why hasn't this been addressed and what is being done about it now that analog has been shutdown? From what I can see it is being handled on a case-by-case basis with stations requesting either different channel or changes to power/antenna. If the same modeling is being used, as led to poor coverage in the first place, how are these decisions being made?

/tom

The rules involve both what I'm calling FCC's "contour methodology" as well as Longely Rice ..... Here are some of those rules :Congratulations, you have found that there are rules and exceptions within the rules.

Concerning (e) (2) above and the FCC's ".... will also extend digital service to a number of persons, including Mr. Dobson, who do not presently receive a predicted signal from WDKY-TV."And it did. Per section 622 that you quoted "(e) DTV Service Areas. (1) The service area of a DTV station is the geographic area within the station's noise-limited F(50,90) contour ..." The service area WAS extended beyond the old analog service area. The FCC didn't say service was available within the service area in their R&O ... they said that Mr Dobson and a number of persons would be within the digital service area. A fine line, but that is what we are dealing with when dealing with the FCC.

Did they run a Longely-Rice Study for the location of the Manchester PO Box submitted with his comments ?Of course not. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to supply evidence, not for the commission to generate it. We're talking about the commissioners - not an engineer at the media bureau. They decide based on the facts PRESENTED.

Mr. Dobson did not provide any technical proof of his theory. WKDY's response was within the scope of the FCC rules. If you want the FCC commissioners to decide in your favor you have to educate them. :)

Regarding that one ... Indeed, if you have ever browsed throuigh "interference studies" submitted by DTV stations/consulting engineers with Applications for construction permits/etc, when the "detailed output" is included, you will notice they are performed via the procudures outlined in OET bulletin #69 (with Longely-rice) .....Yes ... smart stations using the rules to their full advantage by reducing the number of people interfered with to a minimal number so they can get their proposals approved.

Acceptance of LR for some purposes does not require use for all purposes.

Trip,

Is WPXD staying where they are now, or move to Southfield?

They're planning to move in.

Have you forgotten that there is an amplitude problem with WBRA that you documented two months ago?

Last I checked, it looked better. The SNR is actually improved at my location. The dropouts, however, make it unwatchable on a pretty regular basis. No power increase will correct this.

Given that, I still know lots of people who simply cannot receive their signal. There's no prediction model which takes into account electrical interference, unfortunately. I have a roof-mounted outdoor dedicated antenna and the slightest thing makes it drop.

Trip, you're the last person I want to get in an argument with. Let me try again...

I'm not trying to get in an argument with you either, I just think this FCC contour stuff is misleading at best. I know what they're doing, I just don't think it's right.

Whoever said in the tangle of posts about "if you don't like it, get the rules changed," that's probably about what my mindset has become. Though if I didn't have time to baby a PRM through the FCC process about super translators or about changing power limits on upper-VHF LP digital stations, I definitely don't have time (or expertise) to do anything about that.

Now, there is no doubt that "the FCC" understands that reception is possible beyond the service contours. However, this additional service enjoys no explicit protection and has little standing with regards to regulatory proceedings. That's what is meant by "you shouldn't be watching." Dobson's potential for watching WDKY is protected, your watching of stations beyond their service area is not.

Yeah, except that when someone tries to turn on a white space device, I won't be able to watch the stations in my DMA because they're only allowing people within the contour any recourse. Thanks, FCC, great job. Way to serve the public interest there. Even though I have line of sight, I'm outside the magic contour line, therefore, I should get nothing.

Mr. Dobson did not provide any technical proof of his theory. WKDY's response was within the scope of the FCC rules. If you want the FCC commissioners to decide in your favor you have to educate them. :)

His real-world observation was that UHF stations did not reach him, while VHF stations did. The model trumps reality for the FCC. I wonder if a signed affidavit by Mr. Dobson would have worked? Probably not.

- Trip

KSQA-12 in Topeka has finally filed for a construction permit.

WINM wants to top-mount the 12 antenna, but without a power increase, so I'm not going to call it a VHF nightmare.

Speaking of VHF nightmares:

WVPT seeks an STA for 10 kW on channel 11, matching the facility specified in an earlier application. It's apparently going to be tested with WBAL's higher power level to test for real world interference.

WBBM-12 in Chicago has applied for a fill-in translator on channel 26. It's 15 kW DA to protect WKOW. This makes them the last full-service signal in Chicago to seek a UHF presence of some kind.

- Trip

As someone coming to the digital over the air party late in the game is there a semi-technical tutorial about digital station coverage area and interference mitigation? Can someone point me to a link?

[...]

/tom

I really want to answer this post, but I just do not know where to start. Does someone else have a link so I don't have to try to muster up the gumption to type it all out myself?

- Trip

WINM wants to top-mount the 12 antenna, but without a power increase, so I'm not going to call it a VHF nightmare.Not much of a move ...
http://jameslong.name/avs/winm.jpg
I suppose there is no point in wasting the top of the tower on a channel 63 antenna. Might as well move up the new antenna.
(Why yes, there is a flock of birds in my picture.)

If you are outside a station's DMA, then you are not a target for their advertisements. The business model for local broadcasting in the cable age begat this notion.

Im the one that made the WTOG quote. Much ado was made because I had a "407" area code cell phone number, that I should be watching WKCF. I told them 1) He cannot really tell where I am viewing the station from my number anymore, for all he knew I could be sitting in downtown Tampa. and 2) Portions of his grade B did reach portions of 407, that there was no magic of DMA lines. I did not call him for receiving advice, just to find out if he was operating on his maximum authorized post analog facilities at full authorized power. He did answer that question yes.

WTOG started out life as the only independent station in the area. Ch 35, the second such station in the area had not taken to the air yet. At that time, WTOG was carried on cable systems in Tampa, Orlando, Gainsville, Ft Myers DMA markets. It was said that since this little UHF station from St Petersburg was one of the only independents that were making money, that this station and its programming inspired Ted Turner to take anothter UHF independent in Atlanta, Ch 17 national.

When WTOG was viewable from so many areas of Florida, nearly as many as WCIX in Miami (Another independent doing the same thing), I doubt the stations worried as much as where their viewers were. I think this engineer would freak out if he knew of the cross DMA history of the station he currently works at.

I think the DMA system needs to be altered to give credit to these stations with out of market viewers. There are a lot of areas where the only choice OTA is an out of market station. Of course, I often wonder if OTA viewers are excluded from surveys as automatic measuring boxes would be a bit more difficult to rig up in the age of CECB's, and their desire to limit the ratings to only the stations in the DMA. In my case in Orlando DMA, I choose to watch the PBS from Tampa, WEDU instead of WMFE. This is because of WMFE's practice of turning off their transmitter during the overnight hours, then telling their viewers to watch Bright House (which must be fiber fed). I figure if a station does not want to serve me during all operating hours, I will switch to an available station that will. And of course since this is PBS, I know which station to support at pledge time, and it is NOT WMFE.

These would probably cause the current-WTOG engineer even more consternation
http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/wtog1975.jpg (Jan 27, 1975) (you wouldn't believe the camera used)
http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/ra/wtog75-a.ra (Apr 15, 1975)

This area's educational channel, KLRN-9, started in Sep 1962 (way before PBS) and with a TL midway between (not way off to the side like KCWX) Austin-San Antonio it served both markets well. For years their annual May auction had studios in both cities. In 1979 Austin got its own Ch 18 (KLRU) and things began to unravel. In Apr 1984 KLRN moved their TL s.e. of San Antonio. There are still many Ch 9 rooftop antennas to be found in this town aimed n.e. at the KLRN pre-1984 TL azimuth! I'll assume that all of these are disconnected relics as aiming that way to get KLRN-DT-9 will usually not make for a decode of their now-low ERP from a TL c. 17 miles s.e. of here.

Here's the interesting thing about their reception... when the VHF stations are in, the UHF stations are usually out, and vis-versa... when the UHF stations are in, the VHF stations are out. Is this a commonly known factor in signal characteristics or something unique to this area?

Larry
SF

Larry,

I have a similarly perplexing situation here. If KGO 7 is in, then nothing on UHF from Sutro comes in and all Mt. San Bruno is out. If any Sutro UHF is in, chances are KGO will be out and San Bruno is out. If San Bruno is in, both VHF and UHF will be in but everything from Sutro is out. This is very consistent with few exceptions.

Now in the Salinas direction, all Fremont Peak and Mt. Toro VHF/UHF go up and down in unison, few exceptions.

I think it just has to do with the nature of the ducting to your particular location.

Chuck

Checking WTOG 44 on YouTube shows many of the Station ID promos used in the '70s. The marketing part of the station was supporting putting them up in honor of the 40th birthday of the station. Guess the CE never got the word. These were used for legal ID purposes and were from 30 seconds to 2 minutes, and featured scenes from around the area, many of which are now gone.

In this market we have WESH Ch 2, which you also have in your QSL collection. Because of distance from Miami, they were always unable to transmit from the normal antenna farm location with the other Orlando market stations. Thus, Wineguard for years sold what was called the Orlando Special which was a all channel antenna combined with another Ch 2 dipole connected with a special phasing line to the other antenna. Ch 2 has been dead since 6/12, but you can see lots of those antennas pointing to Orange City. Most of them do not appear to be used, as they do not appear to have a downlead attached. Also, another giveaway is when the antenna is pointing the wrong way, having been turned in one of our many storms here and never re-aimed.

Well, this is just my opinion, but I think the FCC needs to come into the 21st century and start using realistic contour maps based on terrain like TVFool does. The current maps may be fine for the Great Plains or Florida but they're a joke out here in California.

I know for sure that many of the stations I've looked at don't have any coverage in large areas within their contour maps because of terrain shadowing. And there are many areas where they have coverage beyond their contours because of elevated terrain on the reception end.

Seems as though the FCC is trying to squeeze low power stations into every nook and cranny without considering where existing stations can actually be received.

Chuck

The reason that KBEJ/KCWX was unable to locate its TL at a more-sensible point like KLRN did to serve these two metro areas was that it'd infringe into the KPRC-2 protected contour (and maybe XEFE-2 in Nuevo Laredo). As it was, that shoehorned allocation caused KMID-2 in Midland to change its offset which in turn made the (unborn) KACV-2 PBS in Amarillo change their offset. Machinations.
----
Tropo ducting conditions can be vastly different for Ch 7-13 than the UHF channels. Theoretically the UHF duct being smaller in physical dimentions should form first. By the time that a larger one may form in place for the lower channels then the geometry of the whole system may result that the UHF signals from the same TL are no longer optimal for that path. This is often seen with the Houston-San Antonio path where the UHF signal peaks are out of sync with the 88-108 MHz ones from there. Also, the greater absoprtion effects of things near the receive point antenna (leaves, etc) on UHF signals vs VHF can complicate observations.

Holy hell. The WDAM/WLBT petition showed up on the ECFS today. 246 pages.

- Trip

In this market we have WESH Ch 2, which you also have in your QSL collection. Because of distance from Miami, they were always unable to transmit from the normal antenna farm location with the other Orlando market stations. Thus, Wineguard for years sold what was called the Orlando Special which was a all channel antenna combined with another Ch 2 dipole connected with a special phasing line to the other antenna. Ch 2 has been dead since 6/12, but you can see lots of those antennas pointing to Orange City. Most of them do not appear to be used, as they do not appear to have a downlead attached. Also, another giveaway is when the antenna is pointing the wrong way, having been turned in one of our many storms here and never re-aimed.

Hell, well into the 80's, you could still spot on a few old 2-story houses near downtown Orlando what looked for all the world like big ol' channel 4 yagis, pointed roughly north, probably fossils from the early 50's when WJXT in Jax was the closest TV station. Old antennas have a habit of sticking around long after their usefulness -- probably the owners don't want to climb up to take it down, nor pay someone to do so, and they figure as long as it doesn't appear in imminent danger of coming down in a storm, leave well enough alone.

There are tons of old probably no longer used "Orlando Specials" in the neighborhood behind us, some looking mighty frail and rusted and not mounted too securely. How they all survived 5 years ago through Charley, Frances and Jeanne, I'll never know.

Our local Ch 41 (as KCOR on in 1955 as one of the country's first Hispanic-programmed stations and this town's 3rd TV) had its 500' tower downtown, and therefore most only needed a single-bay bow-tie antenna in that era to get them well. As it was the only local UHF full-power station in this market until Ch 35 came on in Nov 1985, having an external UHF antenna during those 30 years automatically catagorized you as one of its viewers. They even ran ads in 1962 TV Guides (soon after Congress had passed the all-channel TV set rules to go into effect in Apr 1964) the gist of which was why wait, get a UHF converter box, etc. as a lot of their sports programming (soccer, bullfights) didn't require any knowledge of Spanish.

...probably fossils from the early 50's when WJXT in Jax was the closest TV station.

Correcting myself before someone else does -- ch. 4 in Jax would have been WMBR way back then...

Interesting to think about -- Orlando had no local TV until WDBO (now WKMG) signed on in 1954. So, for five years the closest TV signal was about 120 miles away. (Even Tampa-St. Pete didn't get local VHF until 1955 -- WSUN signed on to ch. 38 there in '53, but given the primitive state of UHF receiving technology, that wouldn't have been a realistic option for Orlando viewers).

You had to be pretty committed to the new-fangled technology to lug a huge antenna up to your roof, mount and guy it, feed it with lossy feedline (no coax back then; probably twin-lead...some in those days even used plain old lamp cord), connect it to a set with not yet perfected tuning (likely not as sensitive as later models) to try to watch a lo-band station from 120 miles away that was probably not yet running a full 100 kw, plagued with frequent scatter and CCI off the back of the antenna from the other pioneering Florida station (co-channel WTVJ in Miami), not to mention frequent summer e-skip (an awful lot of early stations were on channel 4). I'll bet the evenings when the signal was relatively stable and snow-free were very much in the minority. But it would enable you to brag to your friends "we got TV!" and in those days, seeing anything on that little black-and-white screen seemed like magic to many folks.

Of course, here we are 60 years later, and some people still have problems with their over-the-air TV. :rolleyes:

Holy hell. The WDAM/WLBT petition showed up on the ECFS today. 246 pages.

Jesus, there are many best-selling novels shorter than that. Maybe they're looking towards optioning the movie rights up the road... :rolleyes:

I'll bet there were more than a few colorful oaths uttered at the FCC when that behemoth arrived in their hands...

You had to be pretty committed to the new-fangled technology to lug a huge antenna up to your roof, mount and guy it, feed it with lossy feedline (no coax back then; probably twin-lead...

That reminds me of the first time I traveled to California on business (before I moved here from southern Maine) way back in 1978. I was in the paper industry, and we had an installation in Hollister that manufactured roofing felt. Hollister is probably about 80 to 90 miles away from Sutro and behind some hills. Every house in town had a TV antenna on a 40 or 50 ft. mast. It stuck in my mind because the houses are all single story, so it looked like a "forest" of antennas.

Ron

That reminds me of the first time I traveled to California on business (before I moved here from southern Maine) way back in 1978. I was in the paper industry, and we had an installation in Hollister that manufactured roofing felt. Hollister is probably about 80 to 90 miles away from Sutro and behind some hills. Every house in town had a TV antenna on a 40 or 50 ft. mast. It stuck in my mind because the houses are all single story, so it looked like a "forest" of antennas.

I used to vacation a lot in the North Carolina mountains (back when I could still afford vacations), and it was not uncommon in the valleys and hollers to see a TV antenna mounted not on the roof or a mast or a tower, but just stuck in the middle of the yard, seemingly randomly, on a short pole, with a long lead-in back to the house. I theorized (and am told there is some justification for it) that in those rough receiving areas, height above ground is not always the key -- sometimes it's a matter of finding a "sweet spot" where enough signal happens to fall after bouncing and knife-edging around the hills in convoluted fashion, a spot where moving the antenna a foot or two in any direction negates any signal gain. (I always pictured poor Jed or Bubba wandering around the "estate," lugging the antenna on a pole, and every few feet temporarily planting it and repeatedly yelling back to the wife, "How's it look now?") :D

On my first road trip up I-35 to Austin in Mar 1964 one could not help but notice the TV antennas beamed back at San Antonio got higher and higher as you went north, then at some point they began to swing around towards Austin and got shorter. The LBJ-owned monopoly of Ch 7 in Austin (they also owned the CATV system) lasted until a Ch 42 came on in late 1965 as an independent (airing any castoffs the three-network Ch 7 didn't want). OTA folk who wanted to see the ABC Bridge on the River Kwai in 1966 had to resort to Ch 12 from San Antonio. One embarassing moment came in 1967 when The Great Escape aired as a two-part network movie. Due to commitments Ch 7 had the first nite and Ch 42 the conclusion. Ch 42 became the NBC affiliate in early 1968, but it was another three years before they got a dedicated-ABC affiliate (Ch 36) finally leaving Ch 7 to CBS alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTBC

Tonight's FCC action:

WNBC wants to operate a DTS. It's apparently their part of the filing WPXN made a few weeks ago.

And the rest of the action is in VHF Nightmares:

Citadel strikes again:

KCAU-9 wants to increase power on 9 to 43.9 kW.
WHBF-4 wants to increase power on 4 to 33.7 kW.
WOI-5 wants to increase power on 5 to 28.5 kW.

WESH-11 wants two fill-in translators. One on channel 18 on the tower their analog used to be on, and one on channel 24 in Ocala. And Piggie, I hate to say it, but I doubt it will help you. :(

WOIO-10 in Cleveland wants to operate at 9.5 kW on the current antenna. They have a permit for more power on a top-mounted antenna, but want to boost power immediately.

KXLY-13 in Spokane wants yet another fill-in translator, this time on channel 22 in Coeur d'Alene.

- Trip

Had to chime in with this. I remember the first trip to the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines in the late 60s. We lived in southeast Iowa at a time when CBS (2)and ABC (9)came from Cedar Rapids, another CBS (3) came from Ottumwa, actually 40 miles south of us just over the line in Missouri and NBC (13) came from Des Moines. The other network affiliates in Des Moines were too short and far away at the time, same with Cedar Rapids/Waterloo, and Ottumwa being a single station market was a cherry-picker, but mostly CBS (they switched to ABC in '68.) EVERYONE had rotors in our town. NO ONE kept antennas pointed toward Ottumwa: 1. It was strong enough that people just worked it off the back side of their antennas. 2. Waiting a week or so for the ice to thaw while you were pointed toward Ottumwa to get the best possible picture for that CBS color spectacular (or later the ABC Sun. Night Movie) wasn't much fun.

Anyway, the closer you got to Des Moines, first the rotors disappeared. Closer still, the large, bracketed boom yagis disappeared. Finally within 20 miles of Des Moines the rooftops were full of cut-to-channel yagis, generally three element channel 5s on the bottom, then separate two element yagis for 8 and 13 all pointing in different directions depending on what side of town you were on. There are still a very few of these multi antenna jobs up on DM roofs.there. Some were corrected so that they all pointed north to the big 2k footers that came in the early 70s, others never bothered.

Anyway, here in Canon City there are quite a few old relics on roofs. (just like the old cars and trucks fading away, mostly rust-free, in the back yards of quite a few houses here.) Here are a few...

An old classic Winegard (http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff124/rgjraccoon/d9722eab.jpg) which may possibly now be that can of beer you're holding. It was up until about 6 months ago when the house it flew above sold. It was also what was on my folks' house as a kid.

Radiart "ultramatic" stacked model (http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff124/rgjraccoon/b3d63314.jpg)

Finco "bedspring" (http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff124/rgjraccoon/971fbbb7.jpg)

At least our "great conversion" was only about TV: "Samoan drivers changing sides of the road" (http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/samoa-road-switch-could-trigger-crashes-2929721)(:eek:)

At least our "great conversion" was only about TV: "Samoan drivers changing sides of the road" (http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/samoa-road-switch-could-trigger-crashes-2929721)(:eek:)

After re-reading that correctly as drivers vs divers ... In the UK 1952-54 with my Dad having imported a US '53 Chevy I can well appreciate their impending situation. When behind large trucks (lorries in Brit-speak) one often had to rely on some signal from their drivers to indicate that the opposing lane was clear enough of traffic for us to safely pass them.

Tonight's FCC action:

WESH-11 wants two fill-in translators. One on channel 18 on the tower their analog used to be on, and one on channel 24 in Ocala. And Piggie, I hate to say it, but I doubt it will help you. :(

- Trip

It will be on the edge. It will be 1.75 KW my way at about 19 miles. I might work depending interference on 24. With a huge "might". They are about a mile south of W29AB, which with a good yagi I can receive good enough if they were digital it would lock.

Orange City just too far. Even at 500 meters because I am in the null with about 500 watts aimed at me.

Face it Orange Springs is the forgotten corner of the world. Actually for other things, it's why I love living here. Good with the bad and DTV is BAD..... or at least NBC... That might raise the number of possible NBCs to me to 5 with all of them just a little too far.. Maybe I need to put up a translator? lol. right.... There is a 400 ft cable head end tower about a mile east of me. But then I would have to get rid of my amp... can't win......

Congratulations, you have found that there are rules and exceptions within the rules.


They aren't exceptions. Like I said, some FCC rules involve L-R ......


If you want the FCC commissioners to decide in your favor you have to educate them.

Mr. Dobson knew nearby severe terrain obstruction issues would be an issue involved. Regarding that, He "educated" the commission in his comments to FCC :


... WDKY's digital signal reaches many viewers, Particularly in Eastern Kentucky, who would not receive the station if it were to move to UHF 31(Including myself).



WKDY's response was within the scope of the FCC rules.


Yes, but IMO, Mr. Dobson's comments were JUST as valid and on target as what they submitted, more so in some regards to some extent ... And, IMO, WDKY was lucky they got what they wanted based on what they submitted, as I found it quite weak vs. what they could have done to demonstrate to FCC a change to channel 31 was warranted. Just a few short examples of what they didn't mention which probably would have been to their benefit : impulse noise issues on lo-VHF, that Lexington was a all UHF only analog market, and many OTA users were using UHF only antennas/etc/etc, that receive antennas on future mobile devices that support reception of station's ATSC M/H (mobile DTV) services aren't likely to work well on lo-VHF/etc/etc .... Such that If Dobson (or someone else) HAD decided to submit "technical showings", regarding loss of Service due to Terrain obstructions in portions of WDKY's service area ---- It's possible they very well may have been in trouble .....

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


Yeah, except that when someone tries to turn on a white space device, I won't be able to watch the stations in my DMA because they're only allowing people within the contour any recourse.


But, of course, as you know, if you were a "cable head-end" outside the predicted service contour, there are provisions in the WSD rules which would (supposedly) protect your site from interference from WSD's .....

After re-reading that correctly as drivers vs divers ... In the UK 1952-54 with my Dad having imported a US '53 Chevy I can well appreciate their impending situation. When behind large trucks (lorries in Brit-speak) one often had to rely on some signal from their drivers to indicate that the opposing lane was clear enough of traffic for us to safely pass them.Riding shotgun in an American car in England felt like I was the bullet. :D
Then again people creating a third lane when they didn't complete passing before opposing traffic on a regular basis was interesting as well. Plus the third lane passing segments, similar to the "left turn only" lanes seen in the states except these lanes were used for passing vehicles heading in either direction (and could lead to creating a four lane road when opposing passing moves met).

BTW: My first thought on the linked story was "they have a side of the road in Samoa?" Many countries just get in and go!

Many countries just get in and go!

Kinda like the folks in this YouTube.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2063667852598904740&hl=en

S.B., after seeing that clip, I can say as a former on-air traffic dude is that I'd be in complete culture shock!

Tonight's only significant FCC action is a VHF nightmare.

WMVS-8 in Milwaukee is the latest to want a fill-in translator. They want 15 kW on channel 36.

- Trip

Tonight's only significant FCC action is a VHF nightmare.

WMVS-8 in Milwaukee is the latest to want a fill-in translator. They want 15 kW on channel 36.

- Trip

Does anyone else think it was odd that someone who had two public TV stations in the same market would abandon the digital facility of their more established station (WMVS) to go back to their old VHF channel - leaving them as an "odd man out" on VHF in their market, while using a UHF channel for their weaker, less-established station (WMVT). The same thing was done in at least one other market (Pittsburgh).

In this case, could WMVS put their existing lineup on 35 and use the virtual channel 10 on it, put WMVT's octoplex on channel 8, along with its virtual channels 36.1 - 36.8, and worry about switching WMVT to UHF later, if they so desired.

I suspect part of WMVS's problem may not be inherent to VHF - interference from other channel 8 DTVs, especially WWMT (much of its path over Lake Michigan).

WMVS was analog 10, and has been on digital 8 since it signed on years ago. Channel 8 was assigned to them by the FCC.

I do wonder if they should consider swapping the frequencies, though WMVT does have a multicast and provides more video services than WMVS does with its single HD feed, so maybe that weighs in the decision.

- Trip

WMVS was analog 10, and has been on digital 8 since it signed on years ago. Channel 8 was assigned to them by the FCC.

<snip>

- Trip

Oops!

My mistake, WVMS has always been channel 8 digital.

I had them confused with Pittsburgh.

WMVS was analog 10, and has been on digital 8 since it signed on years ago. Channel 8 was assigned to them by the FCC.

I do wonder if they should consider swapping the frequencies, though WMVT does have a multicast and provides more video services than WMVS does with its single HD feed, so maybe that weighs in the decision.

- Trip

Actually, they DID do that, essentially, a year ago or so. To be correct: they didn't swap frequencies, they swapped programming, and in the process, dropped PBS kids and added V-me.

As I recall, at some point WMVS and WMVT didn't even air their analog programming on the digital side, so I'm not sure it's really fair to call it a swap in programming either. To me it would seem more like they decided the main (WMVS) programming should be in HD and aligned the rest of the programming accordingly.

I could be wrong on that. Am I?

- Trip

IIRC HD used to be on 35 and they ran 4 SD + 4 with the same traffic/weather video and different audio tracks on 8. When the big push began to simulcast the main schedule on the HD channel, they swapped.

IIRC HD used to be on 35 and they ran 4 SD + 4 with the same traffic/weather video and different audio tracks on 8. When the big push began to simulcast the main schedule on the HD channel, they swapped.

The coyote howls correctly. :D Yessir, that's what happened.

WWPX-DT wants to operate their channel 12 DTS facility from DC immediately. Otherwise, no interesting FCC action over the weekend other than a ton of LP displacements.

- Trip

WWPX-DT wants to operate their channel 12 DTS facility from DC immediately. Otherwise, no interesting FCC action over the weekend other than a ton of LP displacements.

- Trip

Well, I hope that this DTS works well so WWPX drops their request for 51.

Unfortunately, I don't see that as the case. I think this is just trying to increase the value of WWPX immediately so as to help sell the station. I doubt they're giving up on channel 51 anytime soon.

I was going to file comments on it and just never felt like finishing up the paperwork. I wish the FCC accepted electronic comments on these things, but I can understand the reasoning that they don't.

- Trip

DTV Notes
FCC Sued Over DTV Transition Info
Conservative group claims FCC violates FOIA
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/24/2009 2:00:00 AM EDT

An FCC that prides itself on transparency and openness is under fire from a conservative group that sees it quite differently. A suit in federal court has been filed over documents that the agency has been hesitant to provide, according to the group, Judicial Watch.

The commission counters that it was within its rights to do so. It is also awaiting White House input on other documents.

The group has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in an attempt to compel the FCC to turn over documents related to the DTV transition.

Judicial Watch filed its first FOIA request in February. This followed a press report claiming a telecom adviser to President Obama's transition team stood to benefit from the delay of the transition; the delay, it was stated, would slow up Verizon's rollout of a new broadband network that would compete with existing service Clearwire.

Clearwire is backed by strategic investors that include Intel Capital, Comcast, Sprint, Google, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. The story was referenced by Republicans in Congress during a brief debate over the bill that succeeded in moving the DTV date from Feb. 17 to June 12.

In its lawsuit, Judicial Watch says the FCC provided highly redacted documents related to the decision to delay the transition (essentially comprising a series of status reports), withheld other documents and provided no communications with the White House concerning the delay.

While the FCC did not comment—a spokesman said the commission does not comment on ongoing litigation—a copy of the commission's May 8 response to Judicial Watch does indicate the FCC's justification for the timing and nature of the material it did release. The document also includes a promise to supplement the response after it had checked with the White House about what privileges, “if any,” it would assert.

The White House did not return a request for comment on the suit or the timing of its own response to the FCC.

“There is no provision of FOIA law that allows the White House to screen requests for potentially damaging information,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in announcing the suit. “The FCC has an obligation to abide by the law and either release the documents or provide a justification for withholding them.”

But in the May 8 letter, FCC Associate General Counsel Joel Kaufman points out that Justice Department guidelines on FOIA requests involving the White House and the Executive Office of the President have to be vetted there first, in case the White House plans to assert any privileges regarding their handling.

Kaufman also says that the FCC would not release some of the records discussing Congress' decision to delay the DTV date because they are “deliberative materials” that can be withheld under an existing FOIA exemption. The same exemption applies to some draft memos the FCC located, which according to Kaufman do not represent “final views” of the agency.

Judicial Watch was not satisfied. In its suit, the group said that the documents it eventually received (on June 16) were heavily revised without sufficient explanation of the deletions—the group wanted specific citations to FOIA exemptions—and did not include the White House-related material. Now the issue moves from a series of letters to the letter of the law.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/328210-FCC_Sued_Over_DTV_Transition_Info.php

I've tweaked my New Orleans TV tower tour a bit.

Each page now has vital specs for each TV station on the tower (HAAT, power, affiliation, owner, etc.) Previously, I only had specs on the towers themselves.

In addition, for the SpectraSite tower, the first tower on the tour, I've listed the 6 FM radio stations combined into the FM array at the top, and the one on a lower antenna. (In other words, 7 FM radio stations transmit from this tower.)

Enjoy.

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

I've tweaked my New Orleans TV tower tour a bit.

Each page now has vital specs for each TV station on the tower (HAAT, power, affiliation, owner, etc.) Previously, I only had specs on the towers themselves.

In addition, for the SpectraSite tower, the first tower on the tour, I've listed the 6 FM radio stations combined into the FM array at the top, and the one on a lower antenna. (In other words, 7 FM radio stations transmit from this tower.)

Enjoy.

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

Looks nice:)

Speaking of post transition allocations. Is there a list anywhere who now has which of the now old out of core UHF channels? I think FloTV has Ch 55 or that is what I read somewhere. I am sure not all of the new allocations exactly follow old channel numbers.

And where is this Sprint roll out they were so anxious to use? I only hear on TV coming soon.

The LPTV filing window is open and there's a lot of displacements and whatnot being filed.

WVIA wants a fill-in translator on channel 51 in Williamsport.

Also, KAGN-LP needs a new consulting engineer. What gigantic thing is wrong with this application? https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101328212&formid=401&fac_num=22826

WCCB wants two fill-in translators: Channel 20 in Hickory and channel 26 in Shelby.

Here they come again. More VHF nightmares.

WKYT has filed a petition for rulemaking. I heard a rumor they've asked for channel 36, but it won't show up until morning.

Bonten: WCYB and KRCR have asked for fill-in translators on their pre-transition UHF channels.

WGAL wants SIX fill-in translators. They want to operate:
- Channel 43 in Harrisburg (WITF's tower)
- Channel 49 in Ephrata (An FM tower)
- Channel 27 in Carlisle (An FM tower)
- Channel 31 in Gettysburg (WZXQ's tower)
- Channel 15 in Lancaster (Downtown)
- Channel 27 in Red Lion (WGCB's tower)

WWTV wants a fill-in translator on channel 40 in Traverse City. It looks like it's either the same tower WPBN's channel 50 is on now, or one very near by.

WMEB wants a fill-in translator on channel 19. (I guess it assumes WABI is approved for 13)

KGO wants a fill-in translator on channel 35 on Monument Peak (San Jose).

KVCT wants a fill-in translator on channel 25.

- Trip

Also, KAGN-LP needs a new consulting engineer. What gigantic thing is wrong with this application? https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101328212&formid=401&fac_num=22826

- Trip

They would be able to serve a comparable area with less electrical service expense if they chose channel 1, which also looks open. ROTFLMAO!!

WGAL wants SIX fill-in translators. They want to operate:
- Channel 43 in Harrisburg (near or on WHP's tower)
- Channel 49 in Ephrata (east of Lancaster)
- Channel 27 in Carlisle (perhaps near W35BT?)
- Channel 31 in Gettysburg (on a mountaintop closer to Chambersburg)
- Channel 15 in Lancaster (downtown)
- Channel 27 in Red Lion (looks like it targets York, maybe WGCB's tower?)



- Trip

Finally maybe I'll stand a chance of getting WGAL again. At least I'll have LOS to the Gettysburg translator.

Hopefully some others will follow WGAL if it helps them. There are plenty of towers in the area to piggyback on. Guess it was just a matter of work out agrements.

WGAL wants SIX fill-in translators. They want to operate:
- Channel 43 in Harrisburg (near or on WHP's tower)
- Channel 49 in Ephrata (east of Lancaster)
- Channel 27 in Carlisle (perhaps near W35BT?)
- Channel 31 in Gettysburg (on a mountaintop closer to Chambersburg)
- Channel 15 in Lancaster (downtown)
- Channel 27 in Red Lion (looks like it targets York, maybe WGCB's tower?)
- Trip
That has to be a record! BTW if Hearst-Argyle has that much money to throw at WGAL's reception problems I wish they would throw more at solving WTAE's in this end of the state.

Speaking of post transition allocations. Is there a list anywhere who now has which of the now old out of core UHF channels? I think FloTV has Ch 55 or that is what I read somewhere. I am sure not all of the new allocations exactly follow old channel numbers.
Channels 52-59 follow the old 6 Mhz channels, with 52 & 57 paired, 53 & 58 paired and 54 & 59 paired. 55 and 56 are not paired. The upper band (60-69) is divided differently.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/bandplans/700MHzBandPlan.pdf

Someone has probably simplified the list somewhere, but the horse's mouth would be the FCC's website.

(BTW: I believe that Qualcomm holds the licenses for channel 55 in all markets, using their MediaFlo system and providing service as FloTV. Competitive service is provided on channel 54. The market divisions are different between 54 and 55. As an example, here (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2566865) is Qualcomm's license for the Great Lakes area.)

Also, KAGN-LP needs a new consulting engineer. What gigantic thing is wrong with this application? https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101328212&formid=401&fac_num=22826
Seems a little spaced out. Perhaps they want to broadcast to other planets?
I'm surprised the software (application prep and FCC filing) allowed the choice.

Seems a little spaced out. Perhaps they want to broadcast to other planets?
I'm surprised the software (application prep and FCC filing) allowed the choice.

Aside from the fact that even *I* know what's wrong with that app, shouldn't the consulting engineer have looked at the interference reports and wondered why there were NO OTHER stations on-channel that could be affected? :D

Aside from the fact that even *I* know what's wrong with that app, shouldn't the consulting engineer have looked at the interference reports and wondered why there were NO OTHER stations on-channel that could be affected? :D

Or that PSI has a model number for that antenna!

Uhh - they're requesting channel 37 ?

WGAL wants SIX fill-in translators. They want to operate:
- Channel 43 in Harrisburg (WITF's tower)
- Channel 49 in Ephrata (An FM tower)
- Channel 27 in Carlisle (An FM tower)
- Channel 31 in Gettysburg (WZXQ's tower)
- Channel 15 in Lancaster (Downtown)
- Channel 27 in Red Lion (WGCB's tower)

- Trip

Most of these appear to be 15KW translators.
Is there something magic about 15KW?
Is somebody set up to build a 15KW translator cheaply??
What company builds them?
Any Specs on the web anywhere??
Could these translators come in a box that would not need a building??
Can they just be dropped at the bottom of a tower?
Need to be in a building with Air conditioning?
Approximate cost to buy one??
Monthly cost to operate one?

Is six translators going too far?
Is this process getting out of control?
Any opinions on the odds of this all being approved?

Also, KAGN-LP needs a new consulting engineer. What gigantic thing is wrong with this application? https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101328212&formid=401&fac_num=22826


Holy cow! Whoop!

However, they quickly caught their error, and re-filed to do the appropriate thing...

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101326062&formid=401&fac_num=21149

That's a different station, owned by the same owner.

- Trip

Yep.

WKYT is confirmed as requesting channel 36. They want 980' 1000 kW DA.

- Trip

That's a different station, owned by the same owner.

- Trip

Never mind. I'm dumber than their consulting engineer. :o

Never mind. I'm dumber than their consulting engineer.

Nah, you're fine. The call signs are very similar; anyone could have done it. :)

- Trip

Most of these appear to be 15KW translators.
Is there something magic about 15KW?

15 kW is the FCC power limit for low-powered stations.

- Trip

Also, KAGN-LP needs a new consulting engineer. What gigantic thing is wrong with this application? https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101328212&formid=401&fac_num=22826


what a fricken ******.

Aside from the fact that even *I* know what's wrong with that app, shouldn't the consulting engineer have looked at the interference reports and wondered why there were NO OTHER stations on-channel that could be affected? :D

You said the operative word there, "consulting". You do know what an expert is don't you? A drip from over there. Consultants are the same.

Something very strange is going on with WGNO and WNOL. It may be a mistake, but I'm not sure where. The way I see it, there's some sort of disconnect between WGNO and WNOL and the FCC.

Here's the chronology. As you read through it, it will become clear what I'm talking about.


After Katrina destroyed their analog and digital transmitters, they quickly got an STA to resume analog broadcasting from a temporary tower location, but took their time deciding what to do about their destroyed digital facilities.

Then, both stations filed an application to move their transmitter to be co-located with WDSU, and transmit from WDSU's antenna array. The FCC granted them a construction permit to do this.

A few months later, they applied for an ammendment to the construction permits. The ammendment indicated that they were going to transmit from their pre-Katrina tower after all. The ammendment also asked for a power maximization for WNOL, from 775 kW to 1000 kW.

The FCC granted the two construction permits above. When the FCC granted them, they took down the previous construction permit data from the TV query results page, and replaced it with the new ammended construction permit data. It is clear that the FCC believes that WGNO and WNOL are transmitting from their pre-Katrina tower, at 1000 kW each.

Last week, on Aug. 19, WGNO and WNOL filed licence applications. The data in the license application refrerences the earlier un-ammended construction permit! They list specifications as though they were transmitting from the WDSU antenna. It also lists WNOL's power as 775 kW, ignoring the construction permit for 1000 kW, that they were granted. In short, this license application reads as through the ammended construction permits were never applied for and never granted. However, it is clear from the FCC's search results, that the FCC believes that the ammended construction permits were being acted upon, and believes that the stations are operating as per the ammended construction permits. The search doesn't even pull up the pre-ammended specifications, because they were ammended!


So, what the heck is going on?!

Did WGNO and WNOL build to the pre-ammended construction permits and never excecute the ammended ones?

Or, did they execute the ammended ones, and then, in filing their ultimate license application, include the wrong (obsolete) specifications?

Here are some relivent links:

Query results for WGNO:
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=wgno&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9

Query results for WNOL:
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=wnol&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9

WGNO's first post-Katrina construction permit application, asking to transmit from the WDSU tower and antenna dated 3/10/2008:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101236106&formid=301&fac_num=72119

WGNO's ammended construction permit application, asking to transmit from their original tower facility, dated 6/17/2008. This is the one that, clearly, the FCC believes to be in effect:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101250838&formid=301&fac_num=72119

WNOL's first post-Katrina construction permit application, asking to transmit from the WDSU tower and antenna at 775 kW dated 6/13/2008.
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101250291&formid=301&fac_num=54280

WNOL's ammended construction permit application, asking to transmit from their original tower facility at 1000 kW, dated 6/17/2008:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101251476&formid=301&fac_num=54280

WGNO's license application filed last week, back at the WDSU tower and refrenceing the un-ammended earlier construction permit:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101324207&formid=2&fac_num=72119

WNOL's license application filed last week, back at the WDSU tower and refrencing the un-ammended earlier construction permit, and listing the power as 775 kW after being granted 1000 kW:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101324211&formid=2&fac_num=54280

It's worth noting that the WDSU HAAT is quite a bit less than the HAAT of WGNO's and WNOL's own facility as well.

All the data I could ever find (the FCC's web site, Rabbit ears, Wikipedia, etc.) indicated that these stations were executing their newer and ammended construction permits. The FCC even took down the spcifications from the earlier ones from their search pages, here (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=wgno&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9) and here (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=wnol&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9).

So, once again... WTF??!!

It's a quirk in the way the FCC handles things. The 1000 kW ones are maximizations, and thus were not required to be built out. The permit for WDSU's tower is still valid and that's clearly what they've decided to operate, however, the FCC database doesn't seem to support two CPs for a single station, so they only list the newest one.

Plenty of stations had a setup just like this, where they filed for maximized facilities, had them granted, but only built out (and then filed the license for) the Appendix B facility.

- Trip

It's a quirk in the way the FCC handles things. The 1000 kW ones are maximizations, and thus were not required to be built out. The permit for WDSU's tower is still valid and that's clearly what they've decided to operate, however, the FCC database doesn't seem to support two CPs for a single station, so they only list the newest one.

Plenty of stations had a setup just like this, where they filed for maximized facilities, had them granted, but only built out (and then filed the license for) the Appendix B facility.

- Trip

This would indicate, then, that WNOL and WGNO are actually transmitting from the WDSU tower. Perhaps planning to move back to their own tower in the future. This means that I need to modify my tower tour! ;)

Rabbit Ears also pulls up the modified construction permits (but, I assume, that the FCC's search results will pull up this new license application soon).

I also explains why the WGNO/WNOL transmitter building that was swamped to it's roof with Katrina storm surge has not been elevated.

As for the WLAE transmitter building that has also not been elevated... I know from speaking first hand to WLAE employee's that they simply put a transmitter back in their old building, that was similarly swamped, and prayed. They simply don't have the budget to elevate the building.

As to why WWL-FM who shares that building decided to go back in there... Entercom must be gamblers. (Good solid info that they are really in the WLAE building as well.)

Similarly, KGLA must be gamblers, as their transmitter is operating in a building that had water above it's roof also. But, during Katrina, that building had no active equipment in it.

The WGNO/WNOL, WLAE, and KGLA towers are all outside of the hurricane protection levee system! So, even all the work that the Corps of Engineers is doing to beef up the levees will be of no help to them if we, heaven forbid, have another "Katrina". (Buildings that are high enough and strong enough to survive the surge, could certainly be constructed, though.)

Is six translators going too far?
Is this process getting out of control?


It just means that the premise of needing fewer channels for DTV was wrong, at least as respects retaining VHF channels over UHF channels.

If we had held onto a few more UHF channels, we probably wouldn't be seeing as much translator activity.

However, I would love to see the LA stations add some co-located UHF translators. 15kW would be plenty to remove the need for a separate VHF antenna in most LOS areas. Full power UHF would be better, but the auctions of 52-69 were done with incorrect assumptions.

Can we at least add 37 now that we're pretty sure there's no life out there? :D

This would indicate, then, that WNOL and WGNO are actually transmitting from the WDSU tower. Perhaps planning to move back to their own tower in the future. This means that I need to modify my tower tour! ;)


Which, I have now done.

The WDSU tower page (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour4.html) now indicates that WNOL and WGNO are also currently transmitting from this tower, and gives their correct specs.

The WGNO/WNOL tower page (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour7.html) now indicates the "pending" status of their apparent eventual return.

While I was at it, I also tweaked the WWL tower page (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour3.html) to discuss that they rebuilt their facility in 2001 for better hurricane resistance. Also, I tweaked the KGLA page (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour6.html) a bit to indicate that it is outside the hurricane protection levee's and frighteningly vulnerable to hurricanes.

The Tower Tour launch page. (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour.html)

It just means that the premise of needing fewer channels for DTV was wrong, at least as respects retaining VHF channels over UHF channels.

Not really, even if you went back to pre-1983 fo channels 14-83 for UHF for TV if everyone had 6 translatros you'd still be short channels. 6 translators is totally un-nessecary in my book. Sounds like they are trying to cover more than their area. Maybe the FCC should raise the limit to something higher than 15 KW.

Rabbit Ears also pulls up the modified construction permits (but, I assume, that the FCC's search results will pull up this new license application soon).

Well, I pull right from the FCC database, so if it's not listed there, I don't have it either.

Once the license is granted, whenever that happens, then it'll show up correctly.

6 translators is totally un-nessecary in my book. Sounds like they are trying to cover more than their area. Maybe the FCC should raise the limit to something higher than 15 KW.

The problem for WGAL is that they're having to run a mess of different directional patterns and channels because everything is spaced too close together. Between that and the fact that they're on a lot of short towers, I'm not surprised that they need 6 fill-in translators to cover the area, especially if they're looking ahead to Mobile DTV.

- Trip

Well, I pull right from the FCC database, so if it's not listed there, I don't have it either.

Once the license is granted, whenever that happens, then it'll show up correctly.


That's what I figured...

Between that and the fact that they're on a lot of short towers

- Trip

Call me crazy why not just get taller towers? I mean whose fault is it that they are on short towers to start with?

Can we at least add 37 now that we're pretty sure there's no life out there? :D
That appears to be KAGN-LP's plan.

Call me crazy why not just get taller towers? I mean whose fault is it that they are on short towers to start with?

If you'd like to fight the NIMBYs, please be my guest.

Speak to anyone in the Denver OTA thread for details.

- Trip

If you'd like to fight the NIMBYs, please be my guest.
- Trip
Tall towers are very expensive even without the NIMBYs but they can make it impossible.

Someone has probably simplified the list somewhere, but the horse's mouth would be the FCC's website.

Thanks, that was the answer I was looking to see. Wasn't into a lot of detail, just the basics. So it looks like they will be running 30 MHz duplex both bands. A little tighter than on the old 800 MHz band.

But if competitive services are being run on the C block's old ch54, isn't that a waste of the matching channels? Or is it in an area they can't use the upper part of the block anyway?

If you don't know the answer, no big deal, just an observation.

Aside from the fact that even *I* know what's wrong with that app, shouldn't the consulting engineer have looked at the interference reports and wondered why there were NO OTHER stations on-channel that could be affected? :D

LOL, that was my own observation! Wow I found a clear channel! Dah.....

Also the fact they figured they could run an omni. There are not a lot of new translators with the freedom to run omni I have seen.

Hope he cashed the check.................

Seems a little spaced out. Perhaps they want to broadcast to other planets?
I'm surprised the software (application prep and FCC filing) allowed the choice.

Good point. If an alien race were to listen to any other channel, the co-channel would be terrible. (in particular if they visited and beamed out a few CECBs from WalMart and picked Magnavox).

This way there is only one station on 37 on this side of the planet for them to receive in 24 hour cycles. Think of it as reverse SETI.

15 kW is the FCC power limit for low-powered stations.

- Trip

I find that limit interesting. There are a lot of CA licenses running 150KW. The one fifth rule would say 30KW. Never heard any comments on this before and I am probably missing something.

Channel 37 is reserved because of some physics thing I barely remember. Something about the resonant frequency of hydrogen or something like that. I'm probably wrong.

Yeah, it's a 10 dB difference between analog and digital for all low-powered stations. But given how well 15 kW seems to do, I don't think an increase is needed there. I think the increase is needed on VHF LP stations. I was tempted to file a petition for rule making about it, but with school starting, I don't have time to baby it and go back and forth with the FCC over it.

- Trip

It's a quirk in the way the FCC handles things. The 1000 kW ones are maximizations, and thus were not required to be built out. The permit for WDSU's tower is still valid and that's clearly what they've decided to operate, however, the FCC database doesn't seem to support two CPs for a single station, so they only list the newest one.

Plenty of stations had a setup just like this, where they filed for maximized facilities, had them granted, but only built out (and then filed the license for) the Appendix B facility.

- Trip

I have thought that since day one. The FCC could do a few things to their query database that would make reading it much quicker and more accurate.

So what happens Trip. A station get say a license on Tower A for 750 KW. Then later files to maximize to 1000KW on the same tower. Now at some point the licenses have to be renewed. Which do they renew? Do they have to maximize power at the time of renewal if they can only renew the maximized license?

If you don't know that answer then how many Volkswagen Beetles will fit in a phone booth give an average booth at STP?

I have thought that since day one. The FCC could do a few things to their query database that would make reading it much quicker and more accurate.

So what happens Trip. A station get say a license on Tower A for 750 KW. Then later files to maximize to 1000KW on the same tower. Now at some point the licenses have to be renewed. Which do they renew? Do they have to maximize power at the time of renewal if they can only renew the maximized license?

If they have a license for 750 kW and a permit for 1000 kW, they have three years from the date of issuance to build the permit no matter what. The renewal is filed on the 750 kW licensed facility.

- Trip

It just means that the premise of needing fewer channels for DTV was wrong, at least as respects retaining VHF channels over UHF channels.

If we had held onto a few more UHF channels, we probably wouldn't be seeing as much translator activity.

However, I would love to see the LA stations add some co-located UHF translators. 15kW would be plenty to remove the need for a separate VHF antenna in most LOS areas. Full power UHF would be better, but the auctions of 52-69 were done with incorrect assumptions.

Can we at least add 37 now that we're pretty sure there's no life out there? :D

I've been with you all along on this, though believe it or not I get opposite opinions. All I can say is ditto, amen, yeap, and now where are these wonderful services that were chopping at the bit to build out? Even a law suit filed because of the delay.

To me it was just as TV finally made a huge leap in technology, it has been stifled into a status quo of possible viewing choices.

I think there were a few that realized what would happen, but they were not on the side of OTA.

I know this is a dead horse but it was a terrible decision in my opinion that we are now living with.

Political, corporate and legal comments not added.

Yeah, it's a 10 dB difference between analog and digital for all low-powered stations. But given how well 15 kW seems to do, I don't think an increase is needed there. I think the increase is needed on VHF LP stations.
- Trip
Actually here in Zone 1 it's also about a 10 dB difference for VHF full service stations except for those VHF nightmares that have asked the FCC for more. In Zone 3 the difference can be only about 3 dB for VHF. I think the real point of a 1 MW ERP for UHF was to (almost) replicate the coverage of maximum power NTSC VHF stations.

Not really, even if you went back to pre-1983 fo channels 14-83 for UHF for TV if everyone had 6 translatros you'd still be short channels. 6 translators is totally un-nessecary in my book. Sounds like they are trying to cover more than their area. Maybe the FCC should raise the limit to something higher than 15 KW.

Call me crazy why not just get taller towers? I mean whose fault is it that they are on short towers to start with?

Actually you are stating Falcon's point. If we had of had those now out of core UHF channels, a lot of stations would have never gone back to VHF, and if they had, they would be running back to their old out of core UHF, on a tall tower, providing the coverage they had before transition.

In other words no then they would not need channels for 6 translators, just the spacing required to run full power tall towers on UHF. Now to many it's not an economic choice not to put up a tall tower, or a NIMBY or BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) problem.

The problem is they can't run full power on any UHF channel, because they would interfere with another existing station due to the lack of UHF channels. That is the core of mine and Falcon's complaint.

It just means that the premise of needing fewer channels for DTV was wrong, at least as respects retaining VHF channels over UHF channels.

If we had held onto a few more UHF channels, we probably wouldn't be seeing as much translator activity.:D

The premise wasn't entirely wrong, it's just that the politicians got greedy. If we had lost only 14 UHF channels to the digital transition (just like the first time when 70 through 83 were taken away) it would have worked out about right.

Channel 37 is reserved because of some physics thing I barely remember. Something about the resonant frequency of hydrogen or something like that. I'm probably wrong.

Yeah, it's a 10 dB difference between analog and digital for all low-powered stations. But given how well 15 kW seems to do, I don't think an increase is needed there. I think the increase is needed on VHF LP stations. I was tempted to file a petition for rule making about it, but with school starting, I don't have time to baby it and go back and forth with the FCC over it.

- Trip

Well a power increase on VHF would hurt areas like Florida that are already over saturated on at least High Band.

Then on a humorous note. So if a hydrogen powered car drives too close to someone transmitting on CH37 will it blow up?

----

On another note we talked about once here is The Florida Channel's website, just saw it posted on WJCT 7.4 http://www.wfsu.org/tfc/

And then simple Google, here is Florida Knowledge Network http://www.floridaknowledgenetwork.org/

Actually you are stating Falcon's point. If we had of had those now out of core UHF channels, a lot of stations would have never gone back to VHF, and if they had, they would be running back to their old out of core UHF, on a tall tower, providing the coverage they had before transition.

In other words no then they would not need channels for 6 translators, just the spacing required to run full power tall towers on UHF. Now to many it's not an economic choice not to put up a tall tower, or a NIMBY or BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) problem.

The problem is they can't run full power on any UHF channel, because they would interfere with another existing station due to the lack of UHF channels. That is the core of mine and Falcon's complaint.

I'm 100% sure WTVF CH 5 in Nashville chose VHF 5 because we'll it matches their actual channel and they'd thought it'd be cute to have Ch 5 on the actual Ch 5. It had nothing to do with lack of channels. Obviously Ch 50 is open because that's what they are going to use for a translator. Ch 26 is also open. WKRN is on 27 and it's my best station coming out of Nashville. I seriously dought if WTVF could have stayed on Ch 56 they would have choose to do so.

I'm 100% sure WTVF CH 5 in Nashville chose VHF 5 because we'll it matches their actual channel and they'd thought it'd be cute to have Ch 5 on the actual Ch 5. It had nothing to do with lack of channels. Obviously Ch 50 is open because that's what they are going to use for a translator. Ch 26 is also open. WKRN is on 27 and it's my best station coming out of Nashville. I seriously dought if WTVF could have stayed on Ch 56 they would have choose to do so.

Ok, lack of qualification on my part. There are areas and choices where there are still UHF channels.

Here is North Central Florida (Gainesville Ocala area) we have one maybe two UHF channels left that could run full power. Our population density is nothing compared to many other areas of the country.

It's a dead horse now anyway.

The Tower Tour launch page. (http://www.spectra-one.com/towertour/towertour.html)

You should add the stuff about them being vulnerable to hurricanes on your tower tour pages, unless I missed it.

But this post was to compliment you on a nice tower of New Orleans towers, thank you.

So what happens Trip. A station get say a license on Tower A for 750 KW. Then later files to maximize to 1000KW on the same tower. Now at some point the licenses have to be renewed. Which do they renew? Do they have to maximize power at the time of renewal if they can only renew the maximized license?

Remember that the normal steps are application -> construction permit -> license. The process gets rolling when an application to change an existing or construct a new facility is submitted. There are several states that apps can be in, and apps can sit around for years depending on the circumstances. The FCC approves applications by issuing construction permits that, as Trip said, are valid for three years. Once the facility authorized by the construction permit is built, the station applies for a license to cover. Once that license is issued, it replaces any previous license.

During the app - cp - license process, any existing license is still in force. In fact, if you do an application search in CDBS, you might find a license, a cp, and several apps valid for the same station. CPs get modified by apps and apps get amended frequently, so it can be tricky trying to sort out what supercedes what. Nevertheless, there is always only one license in force at a time.

The Special Temporary Authority is the disrupter of this process - designed to handle immediate situations. STAs used to be invisible in CDBS, so be happy that we can see the details of most of them these days. STAs are not meant to last forever, so making one permanent requires filing an application.

I'm 100% sure WTVF CH 5 in Nashville chose VHF 5 because we'll it matches their actual channel and they'd thought it'd be cute to have Ch 5 on the actual Ch 5. It had nothing to do with lack of channels. Obviously Ch 50 is open because that's what they are going to use for a translator. Ch 26 is also open. WKRN is on 27 and it's my best station coming out of Nashville. I seriously dought if WTVF could have stayed on Ch 56 they would have choose to do so.

Oh, come on. Think about what you're saying. If WVTF wanted to stay on UHF, then they would have had to build a third full-power facility. I would be very surprised if ownership, with the help of a consulting engineer, had not looked at the costs and benefits of various options and chose what looked like the best option at the time.

Broadcasters broadcast. They want to reach as many people as possible.

A concise, if not dated, article re Ch 37 http://www.ae5d.com/37/

Oh, come on. Think about what you're saying. If WVTF wanted to stay on UHF, then they would have had to build a third full-power facility. I would be very surprised if ownership, with the help of a consulting engineer, looked at the costs and benefits of various options and chose what looked like the best option at the time.

Broadcasters broadcast. They want to reach as many people as possible.

A) no one told them to pick Ch 56 when they knew it was going away.

B) how much is this translator costing them? A translator which would not be necessary had they stayed on UHF.

1) The FCC assigned 56.

2) Translators are not as much as full-power, especially when it comes to feeding and mounting the antenna. Also, hindsight is always 20/20.

You should add the stuff about them being vulnerable to hurricanes on your tower tour pages, unless I missed it.

But this post was to compliment you on a nice tower of New Orleans towers, thank you.

The KGLA page, and the WGNO/WNOL/WLAE page do mention that those sites are pretty much arse-to-the-wind if a hurricane comes. Those are even outside the levee protection system! :eek: (Which their pages also mention.)

I suspect that if WGNO/WNOL build out the maximization CP's they've been issued, they'll toughen up and elevate their building at the same time so as to not lose the nice new equipment to a hurricane.

WYES/WVUE, WWL and WDSU are inside the hurricane protection levees and have tough buildings up on pilings. They're all pretty hurricane resistant. (WGNO and WNOL are using WDSU's tower and equipment building at present.)

The SpectraSite site has slab-on-grade buildings, at exactly sea level. They're inside the levee protection system, but if there's ever a levee breach, they're screwed. (My "tour" doesn't mention that. I should probably add that.) It was sheer luck that the levees protecting the area where this tower is held, and the area didn't flood.

It's interesting to note that the towers themselves are all designed to withstand 200 MPH winds, if I understand correctly. The towers and antennas all held up well in Katrina. It was some of the buildings at the bottom that had big problems with flooding.

It's interesting to note that the towers themselves are all designed to withstand 200 MPH winds, if I understand correctly. The towers and antennas all held up well in Katrina. It was some of the buildings at the bottom that had big problems with flooding.

You should add as many of those observations to your page as possible. It will sooner or later be found more by people googling.

It's no surprise that they withstood the winds. A lot of specs, engineering, etc. have always been placed on wind damage in general. Water, while limited in it's scope of effect (coastal), is a much more substantial force to be reckoned with so so often over looked. It's also harder to protect against it with the amount of force it has.

Another idea is to forward your information to FEMA. I wish I had Craig Fugate's (head of FEMA) email but it's obviously private. He used to be our local emergency coordinator for Gainesville FL and knew him well. I know he would care about your information if you could get through to him.

1) The FCC assigned 56.

Yeah sure and they had no input. Every other Nashville station got a channel under 52 and WTVF( is a MAJOR NETWORK ) just so happened to get screwed? Do you expect me to believe that ********?

2) Translators are not as much as full-power, especially when it comes to feeding and mounting the antenna.

"not as much" does not = FREE. there is a cost involved. Face it WVTF screwed up and I'm not sure why you want to ignore that or not admit it.

Yeah sure and they had no input. Every other Nashville station got a channel under 52 and WTVF( is a MAJOR NETWORK ) just so happened to get screwed? Do you expect me to believe that ********?

The stations were assigned the best channel to replicate their analog coverage areas. Since there was nothing on channel 56 for a long distance and it could reasonably power up to a huge number, it was given to WTVF, who had the largest coverage area.

And yes, the FCC assigned the channels as they were with a computer program. Stations were given an option to find a new channel if one was available, but in many places, there was no in-core alternative.

You might enjoy poking around the original digital table of allotments: http://www.transmitter.com/FCC98315/chanplan.html

Also, keep in mind that when that table of allotments was created, the plan was for digital TV to use channels 7-59. Later on it was changed to become 2-51.

- Trip

Thanks, that was the answer I was looking to see. Wasn't into a lot of detail, just the basics. So it looks like they will be running 30 MHz duplex both bands. A little tighter than on the old 800 MHz band.

But if competitive services are being run on the C block's old ch54, isn't that a waste of the matching channels? Or is it in an area they can't use the upper part of the block anyway?

If you don't know the answer, no big deal, just an observation.I misread 54, which is paired, for 56 which (like 55) is not. Saying who owns 55 is easy since it is all FloTV (Qualcomm). The other channels are owned by multiple licensees. The answer is not as easy.

I'm hoping that the phone applications can be expanded to also tune ATSC TV but I expect that will mean yet another new phone. :(

Yeah sure and they had no input. Every other Nashville station got a channel under 52 and WTVF( is a MAJOR NETWORK ) just so happened to get screwed? Do you expect me to believe that ********?



"not as much" does not = FREE. there is a cost involved. Face it WVTF screwed up and I'm not sure why you want to ignore that or not admit it.

Like I said, with the information on hand, the station made the best decsion they could. Perhaps they believed that much of the reception issues would not be so bad since most OTA viewers would already have VHF antennas. I don't know what informaion they were working with and neither do you.

I think Trip's reply speaks for itself. No BS.

Another one for the list, WTTA in Tampa wants to move from 38 to 32.

- Trip

Another one for the list, WTTA in Tampa wants to move from 38 to 32.

- Trip

Now that is interesting. Why? Is there co-channel? Adj? or can the maximize on 32? WOGX is on 31, so they will have to watch interference, which I guess they did.

38 was orignally WSUN when I was a kid. Tampa Bay's first TV station going on the air in 1952.

38 going silent in Tampa Bay will truly be the end of yet another era...

WSUN-TV, St. Petersburg (http://jeff560.tripod.com/wsun_tv.html)

All they said is that they can't maximize on 38, didn't say anything beyond that.

- Trip

All they said is that they can't maximize on 38, didn't say anything beyond that.

- Trip

Maybe they're worried about adjacent problems with KAGN-LP on 37.






:D

They're probably not, but I bet if I ran an interference analysis... ;)

- Trip

Back with the WTVF discussion, IMO for every station forced into a low-band VHF DTV assignment like WTVF or WPXI there are three stations that elected low-band purely on economics. In some instances, particularly in the west, that was because of no money in the till. But others, like WOI and WHBF went low-band only because it was cheap.

I may be forced to go to bed without posting an FCC update tonight. The LPTV filing window opened and it's a flood. I'm shaking my head in disgust at some of the things I'm seeing in cities, and nodding in approval at the new rural digital translators I'm seeing filed out west.

- Trip

So 607 filings later, here's what's left:

KEET-11 in Eureka CA wants two fill-in translators, one on 8 in Hoopa and one on 38 in Fortuna.

WAGM-8 in Presque Isle has filed to operate their 3 kW pre-transition channel 16 signal as a standard translator in Fort Kent.

KOAC-7 in Corvallis OR has filed to operate pre-transition channel 39 at about 2 kW as a standard translator.

WCCB-27 wants another fill-in translator, this one on channel 31 in Lancaster SC.

KIXE-9 wants to operate channel 18 in Chico as a standard translator at 4 kW.

KCWX-5 wants another channel 8 fill-in translator, this time in San Antonio.

I'm going to update the VHF Nightmares page as necessary in the morning, I'm wiped out.

- Trip

Another one for the list, WTTA in Tampa wants to move from 38 to 32.

All they said is that they can't maximize on 38, didn't say anything beyond that.

Could also be because of WTCE in Ft. Pierce. That's what happens when you try to cram the same number of stations into fewer channels. You would never have seen full-power analog assignments in those two cities on the same channel.

38 was orignally WSUN when I was a kid. Tampa Bay's first TV station going on the air in 1952.

38 going silent in Tampa Bay will truly be the end of yet another era...



Not exactly a long-standing legacy there. The original WSUN lost their ABC affiliation and went dark not long after WLCY (WTSP) in Largo signed on to ch. 10. IIRC, there was then a long gap (15-20 years) before WTTA occupied the channel.

I may be forced to go to bed without posting an FCC update tonight. The LPTV filing window opened and it's a flood. I'm shaking my head in disgust at some of the things I'm seeing in cities, and nodding in approval at the new rural digital translators I'm seeing filed out west.

- Trip

Where is the list located at for this?

I just search by date on the CDBS Public Access. 08/26/2009 to 08/26/2009. Yes, I opened them all up one by one. And, of course, it's only for areas outside the top 100 DMAs.

I am tempted to put together a list, but I'm not sure I feel like it. If I do it, it has to be soon, before school gets going...

- Trip

KCWX-5 wants another channel 8 fill-in translator, this time in San Antonio.
- Trip

Seems that they might have realized that their request for 80-kw ERP DT-5 wasn't likely to fly. All the then-vacant UHF allocations that they could have gotten in 1986 and been building a San Antonio audience by locating a TL near-in vs nearly a quarter century of this two-market low-VHF foolishness and 9 years of being on the air. In the weeks that they've had DT-5.2 going I've actually watched more programming on them than in all that prior time:)

Back with the WTVF discussion, IMO for every station forced into a low-band VHF DTV assignment like WTVF or WPXI there are three stations that elected low-band purely on economics. In some instances, particularly in the west, that was because of no money in the till. But others, like WOI and WHBF went low-band only because it was cheap.


Keep in mind in some sparsely populated communities, where the people who do use OTA already have outdoor antennas aimed at local stations, and lightning is infrequent (some Northern and Western interior areas), VHF is not that bad.

Also, keep in mind that when that table of allotments was created, the plan was for digital TV to use channels 7-59. Later on it was changed to become 2-51.


This is quite evident by reviewing the pre-transition DTV channel allocations in the 52-69 range:

52: 23 DTV stations
53: 16
54: 12
55: 14
56: 19
57: 15
58: 13
59: 16
60: 1
61: 3
62: 3
63: 1
64: 1
65: 1
66: 2
67: 1
68: 1
69: 1

See a pattern? 52-59 weren't originally intended to be auctioned off. Just ask the likes of WBAL how they liked having to move off of that range (59 in their case).

See a pattern? 52-59 weren't originally intended to be auctioned off. Just ask the likes of WBAL how they liked having to move off of that range (59 in their case).
But the seduction of more money by auctioning off more of the spectrum was a siren song, apparently.

I suspect many of the markets still stuck with VHF Low would no longer need to be if there were just eight more channels. Of course, some of them may have changed over anyway because it takes something like 50 times as much power to propagate a UHF signal as low VHF...

WHBF requires a rooftop antenna in my community. The other UHF stations do not. JD Walls @WHBF tells me that he is sorry about our reception problems, but is proud that RF 4 can be seen as far as 100 miles away. Strange that he would be interested in distant, out of market viewers, but not the outlying viewers in his own DMA. ZIP 61231.

WHBF requires a rooftop antenna in my community. The other UHF stations do not. JD Walls @WHBF tells me that he is sorry about our reception problems, but is proud that RF 4 can be seen as far as 100 miles away. Strange that he would be interested in distant, out of market viewers, but not the outlying viewers in his own DMA. ZIP 61231.

Maybe this from 950 miles http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/whbf-dt-4.1z.jpg would excite him even more :rolleyes: I must convert my 8-mm camcorder footage of them off the 5" b&w monitor that day to something that can be uploaded to the likes of YouTube.

Maybe this from 950 miles http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/whbf-dt-4.1z.jpg would excite him even more :rolleyes: I must convert my 8-mm camcorder footage of them off the 5" b&w monitor that day to something that can be uploaded to the likes of YouTube.

NICE grab!

WHBF requires a rooftop antenna in my community. The other UHF stations do not. JD Walls @WHBF tells me that he is sorry about our reception problems, but is proud that RF 4 can be seen as far as 100 miles away. Strange that he would be interested in distant, out of market viewers, but not the outlying viewers in his own DMA. ZIP 61231.

Someone who "loves OTA" should have no problem putting up a decent antenna.

WHBF-DT-4 has been my most-often logged DTV via Es here so far http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/tvdx2009.txt One major reason may be the lack of co-channel interference from other DT-4 http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/images/usadtv4.gif :)

The WKYT petition has showed up on the ECFS.

WLVI has objected to the WEDY petition to relocate to channel 41 using arguments that were already shot down by the FCC in the WRAL-48 objection to the WYDO-47 petition.

- Trip

Tonight's FCC actions are pretty limited.

WFTV, WTHI, and others are seeking new standard translators, but it's nothing I'm concerning myself with at this point.

The only VHF nightmare for the evening is KWCH again. This time, they want to go up to 66.4 kW on channel 12, permanently. I imagine they'll seek this power level for KSCW once the channel swap is granted.

- Trip

WFTV, WTHI, and others are seeking new standard translators, but it's nothing I'm concerning myself with at this point.

Except that WFTV's are very strange -- applying for two different channels (same coords in each case) in two different towns. (Four apps, but only two locations.) Maybe hedging their bets, filing a "first choice" and "second choice" at the same time to speed things up should their preferred channel not be granted?

(EDIT) Oh, wait...I forgot they also own WRDQ. So, more likely, in each case one channel is for WFTV and the other for WRDQ. (Hard to tell with no input channel listed on any of them...)

Yeah, it's either one or the other. Plenty of companies filed extra channels in case there were conflicts, but others filed for repeating multiple stations. It's hard to tell.

Actually, the lack of an input channel makes me think they want to do what they did with W42DR-D in the Charlotte market, where they show the WSOC 9-1 programming on 6-1 and the WAXN 64-1 programming on 6-2. It doesn't technically translate either station.

- Trip

From TVT:

Co-Channel Interference Can Hobble DTV Reception

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/86182


Munsch recapped the problems that faced analog VHF stations in periods of extended propagation during the early days of TV broadcasting.

"After a few stations were finally constructed along the Gulf Coast, the extent of commonplace temperature inversions, and thus extended VHF propagation, became horribly evident," he said. "Florida stations were often stronger than 'local' Texas stations."

He noted that he could sometimes catch UHF band openings with signals on virtually every UHF channel appeared.

One of the things I found very interesting in Munsch's report is that he has a DTV converter box (the Hisense DB-2010) that scans channels whenever it's turned off. This allows him to review the list to see what new stations have been received at his location. He said many of the VHF channels, and most of the UHF channels, are now represented in his channel guide.

My DTVPal DVR adds channels automatically as well. I imagine this could actually be quite annoying for those not actively DX'ing.

From TVT:

Schenectady Channel 6 TV Station Turns Off FM Simulcast

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/86188


CBS affiliate WRGB(TV) in Schenectady, broadcasting on Channel 6, has turned off its analog simulcast on 87.9 MHz.

That's because the station doesn't have Federal Communications Commission authorization to transmit an analog signal — only digital.

"We are reviewing our options and I apologize for any inconvenience to our audience," says GM Robert Furlong in a message on the station's Web site. "Thank you again to all of our viewers for their patience as we work through our digital issues."

WRGB broadcasts a high-definition digital signal on VHF Channel 6 from a transmitter northwest of New Salem.


It's nice to see this loophole getting closed. Maybe they will re-think how much they want to be on 6 if they can't do this.

Could WRGB change 6 to an analog translator and move DTV ops. to another channel?

From TVT:

Co-Channel Interference Can Hobble DTV Reception

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/86182



My DTVPal DVR adds channels automatically as well. I imagine this could actually be quite annoying for those not actively DX'ing.

My DS DTX9950 will grab and add when it finds a decodable signal on an RF channel that is manually entered - one way to quickly have the same virtual channel showing as associated wth multiple real (RF) channels and making advancing thru the growing (unedited) collection an increasingly-long process.

BTW, a link in that article (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/08/21/11033/?nc=1) has me cited as well:cool:

From today's FCC Daily Digest:

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, JACKSON AND LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI. Proposed channel substitution for station WLBT(TV) from channel 7 to 30 and for station WDAM-TV from channel 28 to 7. (Dkt No. RM-11556 09-156 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 08/25/2009 by NPRM.

There's more here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1922A1.pdf

Basically, WLBT in Jackson wants a UHF to so it can increase its power and get back on viewers' sets. They're only authorized for 10.5 kW, while WDAM in Laurel, MS has room to go to 75 kW on channel 7, so WDAM is willing to take the VHF channel.

The change is subject to a comment and reply period.

From Radio World:

No Freeze — Yet — on Ch 5, 6 LPTV Apps

http://www.rwonline.com/article/86144

NCE FMs are between a rock and a hard place in the age of so-called "Franken FMs," which are LPTVs really operating as radio stations at the lower end of the band, because the commission in April put out a notice that basically said NCE FMs have to continue to protect analog Channels 5 and 6 — until the agency says they don't.

"Pulse 87" in New York is perhaps the most well-known of these LPTV stations that are pushing the envelope of their spectrum authorizations and really operating as radio stations. But unless the FCC puts a freeze in place, more applicants will follow. It's apparent that the analog TV spectrum adjacent to the FM band has greater economic value for radio than for television.

The BMC proposal would re-purpose TV analog Channels 5 and 6 for AM, some FM and LPFM allocations. The FCC really needs to impose this freeze and take a hard look at the public interest benefits of BMC's proposal. There's still time. While the LPTV window opened for rural applicants only this week, it opens for everyone in January.

Considering the problems full power stations have had with Low-VHF, are 300W LD stations even viable there?

Considering how crowded the FM spectrum is, we should be giving priority to NCE stations and AM relocation rather than encouraging more "Franken FM's" and LD's which few can receive.

From TVT:

Co-Channel Interference Can Hobble DTV Reception

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/86182




Funny how stuff I have known personally since the 1970's playing on 2 meter SSB suddenly is news. And in those days I was a Johny come lately.

==========

So you go higher in the sky for more signal being near the cliff on some stations such as I am and you expose yourself to that much more co-channel if not more.

I think if I added two more YA-1713s to form a quad and put it up 50 ft. Then enhanced the backside with a piece of chicken wire hung off the rear of the four beams I could watch NBC all the time.

Back in the 1960's with a small fix-aimed hi-lo VHF antenna at 14' AGL I feared that putting it at a greater height might bring in more Houston, etc to compete with the Es that I was really after on Ch 2 and 3 - and these were the NTSC glory days when you could often ID multiple stations on a channel at a time with even often different audios and videos coming thru at the same time :)

VHF Nightmares:

WOI requested 13.9 kW. I'm not sure why, since they previously filed for 28.5 kW, but maybe the FCC said no.

WJLA has requested an STA to increase from 30 kW to 52 kW.

- Trip

VHF Nightmares:

WOI requested 13.9 kW. I'm not sure why, since they previously filed for 28.5 kW, but maybe the FCC said no.


According to Exhibit 21 of their application, 13.9 kW is "the highest power level that the Station can achieve with its existing equipment." The 28.5 kW application is still listed as "accepted for filing," so it's possible they may be seeking a stop-gap power boost they can do right now, while they wait for a ruling on the 28.5 kW request.

While we're on the subject of Citadel, their replacement translator requests for Des Moines, Sioux City, Lincoln and Rock Island now come up as "granted" in an overnight search.

WJLA has requested an STA to increase from 30 kW to 52 kW.

- Trip

Yea! I might be able to decode 7 during the day.

I got confirmation that the KLKN-31 fill-in translator is already on the air.

- Trip

I think if I added two more YA-1713s to form a quad and put it up 50 ft. Then enhanced the backside with a piece of chicken wire hung off the rear of the four beams I could watch NBC all the time.

Will stagger stacking get you the F/B that you need? www.anarc.org/wtfda/stagger.pdf

Still waiting for the day's FCC actions to come in around noon, but as of right now, it looks like WPBN's petition to relocate to channel 47 might get an NPRM today. It's been assigned 09-160 as a Docket number...

- Trip

Yep, here it is, WPBN got an NPRM today.

- Trip

Will stagger stacking get you the F/B that you need? www.anarc.org/wtfda/stagger.pdf

If I limit it to one channel. Trouble is I like both RF7 and RF13 out of Jacksonville. I did look at staggered stacking seriously when I was using the YA-1713s solely to try and pull in WNBW from Newberry, but they just don't run enough power. I don't believe any size antenna would help, maybe more altitude. 470 Watts ERP at 27 miles, amazes me it even decodes half the time.

I did look at staggered stacking seriously when I was using the YA-1713s solely to try and pull in WNBW from Newberry, but they just don't run enough power.

The offset may be different for 7 and 13 in order to get max F/B, but the forward gain of the two antennas would still add on both channels.

What is the azimuth differences between the two channel 13s?

When Tampa is in, does that mean that you can get NBC on channel 11 from Orlando?

A question for those with knowledge in this area: About the land-mobile licensees in the major metros, are these frequencies shared with other users in a specific area, or does the licensee have exclusive use on their 5 or 10 kHz channel for say a 20 mile radius?

I remember my dad's fertilizer plant had a "business band" license in the 150 MHz range. Our nearest co-channel was a concrete plant about 30 miles away. We'd have to be careful on humid days not to stomp on each other. Beyond that, the channel was basically for our exclusive use. Not the most efficient use of spectrum, especially when you consider all the trunking systems in use today.

It would seem that if the status of most land-mobile operations are like my example above, that there could be some spectrum real estate that could be reclaimed for TV by setting up everyone in trunked systems.

Since I'm pretty much ignorant on this topic, anyone care to enlighten?

http://nsayer.blogspot.com/2009/08/atsc-haiku.html

- Trip

http://nsayer.blogspot.com/2009/08/atsc-haiku.html

- Trip

Nice!

At the request of some folks on another forum, I put together a page showing what the average bitrates are of every station in the RabbitEars database for which that data is present:

http://www.rabbitears.info/oddsandends.php?request=avgbr

- Trip

At the request of some folks on another forum, I put together a page showing what the average bitrates are of every station in the RabbitEars database for which that data is present:

http://www.rabbitears.info/oddsandends.php?request=avgbr

- Trip

Maybe I'm just having a brain fart , but where do I find the bitrate for a particular station? I don't see it.

Maybe I'm just having a brain fart , but where do I find the bitrate for a particular station? I don't see it.

Go to the market listings, find the station you want, click its call sign, then click "Technical Data and Screencaps" and you'll see it listed in a table near the bottom.

- Trip

The average bitrate for 1080i already looks low and unfortunately it will probably go even lower in the future.

Go to the market listings, find the station you want, click its call sign, then click "Technical Data and Screencaps" and you'll see it listed in a table near the bottom.

- Trip

Thanks. Now that I found that I wonder why WSMV only has 12 Mbps bitrate for 4.1 and 2.5 Mbps for 4.2 seems about 3.5 Mbps is missing somewhere. Are they planning on adding another subchannel? I'd prefer they bump the HD up to 15 Mbps.

Whoops, yeah, that's my fault. At one point, WSMV had added a 4-3. I added it, changed the bitrates, then the 4-3 got removed and I forgot to change it back.

The correct bitrates are 14.5 and 3.5, and are now corrected on the site as well.

- Trip

A lot of the bitrates are being artificially lowered by VBR encoders. All the CBS O&Os are using new encoders (NetVX?) that will only use as much bitrate as needed for the content. This means a max of 13Mb/s during SD content, which is what WCBS and a couple others are listed as.

I made this TSReader chart for another purpose, but it fits here. Green line is KTVT Dallas (CBS O&O) using the new encoder; purple line is sister station KTXA using a Flexicoder.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9305/ktvtvsktxa.th.png (http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9305/ktvtvsktxa.png)

The PQ on KTVT is better thanks to the additional decade of engineering put into the newer encoder, but KTXA has a higher nominal bitrate. FWIW, RE has KTVT at 9.45Mb/s, which obviously isn't right.

That's true. If I thought it would produce a reliable number, I'd remove stations which are using VBR. And if I could figure out how to code it. (I tried coding it about two hours ago and ended up taking the site down for 10 minutes due to malformed code screwing with the database.)

- Trip

Okay, so I figured out how to code it in now. I've got three options on the page:

1) Include all bitrates from all stations whose bitrates are not zero.
2) Include all bitrates from all stations whose bitrate is "Constant" or "Unknown."
3) Include all bitrates from all stations whose bitrate is "Constant."

- Trip

Whoops, yeah, that's my fault. At one point, WSMV had added a 4-3. I added it, changed the bitrates, then the 4-3 got removed and I forgot to change it back.

The correct bitrates are 14.5 and 3.5, and are now corrected on the site as well.

- Trip

Thanks. this one is confusing too. for WKMU

21-1 KET1 480i 704x480 4:3 0x0031 2.9Mbps
21-2 KET2 480i 704x480 4:3 0x0041 2.35Mbps
21-3 KETKYHD 720p 1280x720 16:9 0x0051 12.15Mbps
21-3 KETKYHD 480i 704x480 4:3 0x0051 2.65Mbps
21-4 KET ED 480i 704x480 4:3 0x0061 3.1Mbps

Ok first of all 21.3 has 2 listings. Even if you dismiss the 2nd one all the others add up to 20.5 Mbps not even counting the sound bitrates. Of course that's not possible.

Look at the hours of operation for each subchannel. You'll find out that 21-3 in 720p operates 4 hours per day while the 21-3 and 21-4 in 480i are off the air.

- Trip

Look at the hours of operation for each subchannel. You'll find out that 21-3 in 720p operates 4 hours per day while the 21-3 and 21-4 in 480i are off the air.

- Trip

Thanks again. Kind of confusing way of doing things. They should just go with 1 less sub channel and keep the HD 24/7. So I'm assuming any station that say has HD at a not so idea bitrate because of several sub-channels could turn down the bit rates of those SD channels and bump the bitrate on the HD channel say durring primetime hours if they choose too. Would they need FCC permission for this?

Thanks again. Kind of confusing way of doing things.

There's really no better way of listing it, if you're referring to the site's listing as confusing.

They should just go with 1 less sub channel and keep the HD 24/7.

Can't say I disagree. Not sure I understand what the purpose of KET-ED is. I would suspect feeding schools with programming like that could be done just as easily online.

So I'm assuming any station that say has HD at a not so idea bitrate because of several sub-channels could turn down the bit rates of those SD channels and bump the bitrate on the HD channel say durring primetime hours if they choose too. Would they need FCC permission for this?

No, they would not. Some stations actually do this, though most don't.

Actually, many stations are using statistical multiplexing these days anyway, which means the HD takes what bandwidth it needs as it needs it, regardless of the time of day. It's constantly recalculating how much bandwidth is needed.

- Trip

From TVT:

Co-Channel Interference Can Hobble DTV Reception

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/86182





Good ole George!!! (who IS the man credited for inventing the Noise Blanker in commercial two way radio gear..he was working for GE at the time when he developed the 1st working RF Noise Blanker; Motorola had to call it the Extender because of trade mark issues!..The GE guys called it the Munch Box :),..Have known W5VPQ for decades now..good to see him still kicking it up!

There's really no better way of listing it, if you're referring to the site's listing as confusing.

No I meant the station doing things that way. HD 4 hours a day? What's the point?

Some PBS stations do swap back and forth like that. KET is one, WDCQ is another, and I think Smoky Hills PBS (KOOD, KSWK, KDCK, and KWKS) does it too. UNC used to do 3 hours per day until last September, now they have a 24/7 HD sub.

Those are the only ones I can think of right off the top of my head.

- Trip

New feature notice:

I made the directional pattern maps slightly larger, and now if you click on them, a larger version of the pattern is generated. =)

- Trip

New feature notice:

I made the directional pattern maps slightly larger, and now if you click on them, a larger version of the pattern is generated. =)

- Trip

I started looking at them and had to go get a sheet of paper so start writing down each call sign and what the ink blob first put in my head.

It is an ink blot test right? :@)

Looks good.

Anything new to test? I haven't been to that area in a while.

I started looking at them and had to go get a sheet of paper so start writing down each call sign and what the ink blob first put in my head.

It is an ink blot test right? :@)

Looks good.

Hehe. I added a few features; it now also calculates minimum and maximum power levels and the directions those power levels. And just about everything connected to the Odds and Ends page got at least a little bit of work.

Anything new to test? I haven't been to that area in a while.

In the DX Tool? Not really, I tweaked a few things on the DX Location page which you can probably observe pretty quickly, but otherwise, it's mostly the same.

I have a couple of WTFDA members who are supposed to be beta testing the thing, but among my list of like 15 beta testers, most don't seem to have any feedback...

- Trip

What's with this? Two Ch24 applications for WESH.

One even lists a non-directional antenna then gives directional vectors, lol.

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&appid=1329761

Did the calculations.

WESH-24 will provide 1.75 KW ERP on my radial at 20 miles from about 450 ft.

WJGV-48 provides 1.6 KW ERP on the my radial at 18.6 miles from about 300 ft.

Not much difference except the height. Sure wish they maximized the power, as 3 db should be huge at my house. I am about 1/2 mile inside the blue circle so we will see.

How I wish they had maximized their power. Did you see anywhere what their PTO was going to be?

In the DX Tool? Not really, I tweaked a few things on the DX Location page which you can probably observe pretty quickly, but otherwise, it's mostly the same.

I have a couple of WTFDA members who are supposed to be beta testing the thing, but among my list of like 15 beta testers, most don't seem to have any feedback...

- Trip

Maybe the DXTool is ready to go live? If the 15 people are actively adding things and don't say anything........

I am sure a few things in it will be a work in progress.

At some point (probably other towns) but you could ask the Orlando or Gainesville OTA crowd to sign up and enter their stations.

The DX people are probably more sophisticated computer users?

Heathkit used to hire housewives, teen agers, anyone with the least electronics background possible to test their kits.

What's with this? Two Ch24 applications for WESH.

I only saw one. They amended it a few days ago for whatever reason.

How I wish they had maximized their power. Did you see anywhere what their PTO was going to be?

I don't think TPO is required to be filed until they apply for the license.

Maybe the DXTool is ready to go live? If the 15 people are actively adding things and don't say anything........

That's part of the problem. They're not actively adding things. I asked on the WTFDA mailing list and got a few people who were almost begging to try it, then I set them up for it and one never even created a location, one created a location and never added any stations, and I had to beg a few more to add stations. One, who is a frequent reader on AVS, has been very active with it and told me he hasn't found anything wrong, and one other from the mailing list told me he liked it and didn't find any problems, and other than that, I haven't gotten much feedback.

I am sure a few things in it will be a work in progress.

Absolutely. I have things planned that I simply do not know how to code them. I'm not sure if I want to go ahead and launch it now and try to add them in later, or if I want to hold off in case I have to make changes to the database or something.

Actually, since the coverage map side of it isn't ready, I'm not sure that I should launch it yet.

At some point (probably other towns) but you could ask the Orlando or Gainesville OTA crowd to sign up and enter their stations.

As of right now, I think much of the Orlando thread is convinced that I'm an AI program, so... :D

The DX people are probably more sophisticated computer users?

Not so much that they're more sophisticated so much as they have more data to enter and would probably be more likely to notice and point out problems specifically with data or things like that.

Heathkit used to hire housewives, teen agers, anyone with the least electronics background possible to test their kits.

That comes later. Usability is a big concern for later, but I'm mostly worried about the thing not letting people suddenly become logged in as me (:D) rather than usability.

- Trip

Hey, Trip. I just looked at Nashville, TN's listings and I thought I would let you know that with WUXP's listing, that there is no longer a 21-5. They took it off a month or two ago.

Hey, Trip. I just looked at Nashville, TN's listings and I thought I would let you know that with WUXP's listing, that there is no longer a 21-5. They took it off a month or two ago.

Thanks. It's now gone.

- Trip

I only saw one. They amended it a few days ago for whatever reason.

I don't think TPO is required to be filed until they apply for the license.
That comes later. Usability is a big concern for later, but I'm mostly worried about the thing not letting people suddenly become logged in as me (:D) rather than usability.

- Trip

LOL, Orlando OTA is a cool crowd. So real talent in there for a local thread and history of the DMA. I think a good number of the regulars are all about the same era if not age based on things they remember. Like Stans says, he is an AI from the past.

There are two applications for both WESH trans in RabbitEars. I didn't compare the one for Orange City, but I did the one for Ocala. Both are the same except they changed the antenna, and I think the non-directional part might even be a mistake by the FCC.

Either way, I wish they had of filed for 15KW if it passed interference. I need to call WNBW Monday and I am sure they have heard the news. I don't doubt they read this forum. But if they converted WYPN to digital, then the patterns placed back to back would be near omni and cover the whole from their main null and provide Gainesville with a UHF signal for NBC. Who knows. Since they have not even filed to remove the null I have no idea what is going on over there now. It's been months since I talked to them.

I guess I need to go play with DXTool like I was doing, pushing it into ever possible click sequence, which is how I found the logged in as you problem.

Probably not tonight, I am working out bugs in a database I keep here that has gone nuts.

No worries.

I actually figured out a way to make usability a lot better while just sitting here this evening, so maybe tomorrow if I get some time, I'll work on adding it.

Anyone else here interested in beta testing?

- Trip

Trip, is there a technical reason why there are fewe VHF nightmares on Ch 10-13 vs Ch. 7-9?

Well, the higher on the VHF band you go, the easier reception generally would be. Not a huge difference, but perhaps enough of one to affect the numbers.

I haven't actually counted up the numbers on each channel.

- Trip

Trip, is there a technical reason why there are fewe VHF nightmares on Ch 10-13 vs Ch. 7-9?

I haven't looked to see if that ratio exists, but it would be interesting.

A couple of things come to my mind.

1) A lot of the 8 bay UHF antennas do work to a degree on Highband, but all that do work much better on 10 and up.

2) Being that Highband is not all the high in frequency compared to it's bandwidth. So as far as percentage bandwidth it's wide enough so there are differences in characteristics from the lowest channel to the highest. You might over simplify it by calling Channel 13 more UHF like than Channel 7. There is less impulse noise on Ch 13 than 7. The wavelength is shorter so it can find opening into a structure on RF13 that RF7 can't, though it's not much difference.

3) Just the roll of the dice!

I decided to put the DX Tool in public beta.

- Trip

Trip, is there a technical reason why there are fewe VHF nightmares on Ch 10-13 vs Ch. 7-9?

To answer a question aimed towards Trip:
I think more UHF-only antennas do better at 10-13 then 7-9, that may be one reason, as well as what Trip has said.

New feature notice:

I made the directional pattern maps slightly larger, and now if you click on them, a larger version of the pattern is generated. =)

- Trip

Cool, this is something that I like!

A lot of the bitrates are being artificially lowered by VBR encoders. All the CBS O&Os are using new encoders (NetVX?) that will only use as much bitrate as needed for the content. This means a max of 13Mb/s during SD content, which is what WCBS and a couple others are listed as.

I made this TSReader chart for another purpose, but it fits here. Green line is KTVT Dallas (CBS O&O) using the new encoder; purple line is sister station KTXA using a Fleixcoder.
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9305/ktvtvsktxa.th.png (http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9305/ktvtvsktxa.png)

The PQ on KTVT is better thanks to the additional decade of engineering put into the newer encoder, but KTXA has a higher nominal bitrate. FWIW, RE has KTVT at 9.45Mb/s, which obviously isn't right.

Interesting. I was wondering what had happened on WCCO (Twin Cities O and O) As when I used to get them on Rochester, MN cable clear QAM, they were around 18Mbps 24/7, but then they got pulled so the local CBS station, KIMT (not an O and O) could get added to the lineup. Now that I can get WCCO OTA, I have noticed that the bitrates are like what you speak of. This now makes sence!

I decided to put the DX Tool in public beta.

- Trip

Hey just wondering on your DX tool is says

Local Only • DX Only

What specifically constitutes "DX ONLY" technically I do live in the Nashville broadcast area. When you get cable or satellite those are the "local" channels you get.

Also on the "quality" choices"

Green (Reliable)
Yellow (Borderline)
Red (No Decode)

Some stations I get a very reliable signal but mainly at night WKRN is one. 80%-90% all night long pretty much. During the day hit or miss. If it comes in during the day it's barely. I feel that's closer to reliable than borderline but not really either. I certianly make distinction between that station over the others in quality in my book. Or WTVF Ch5. It barely ever comes in but I would not put that "borderline" like I would other channels since it comes in MUCH less reliably than those I do consider borderline but obviously since I can get it in sometimes it's no in the "no decode" zone. Also how does one rank truly DX reception. You know those stations that normally don't come in except under extreme trop conditions. Should I even include them?

One final thing, what if we use multiple antennas. How would I add that in? I have one antenna that I use for UHF and one for VHF. Though 2 of the 3 VHF stations in Nashville can come in on my UHF antenna on occasion. Ch 5 strictly comes in on the VHF one, when it does come in.

Sorry for the questions, but I would be interested in helping out and I'd like to be as accurate as possible.

No need to apologize for asking questions; the point of the public beta is to fix problems and make it easy to understand.

Local stations are stations that you:

- Receive reliably
- Receive only at night but reliably at night, as you suggest
- Would expect to receive given your location, whether you actually do receive them or not
- Received in analog but no longer do in digital

Any other reception would probably be considered DX reception.

Someone else mentioned there were stations they received reliably at night but not during the day and recommended I add another color for it. I'm taking it under consideration as far as whether I want to (which I'm leaning toward doing), but more importantly, what color to use. Any opinions on this would be much appreciated.

As of right now, I'd call them "borderline" but those can be changed when I add a fourth category upon figuring out a color to use. DX reception is always "red." Even if you put in yellow or green for a DX station, it is recorded as "red" in the database.

If you use multiple antennas, you can either list them all as one location, or create additional locations at the same coordinates and just specify different antennas. It's entirely up to you.

If there's anything else I can clarify, let me know. And if you have any thoughts on which color to use for night-only reception, please let me know that as well.

- Trip

How about blue for the color? Yellow and blue make green so there you go. also blue can represent nighttime. Or switch yellow to nighttime and make orange borderline.

I'm actually considering blue. Blue does represent night. I'll think on it a bit. I'll announce it when/if I make the change, though you may notice it show up in the site before I post here.

- Trip

One minor thing. In your reports you might want to make the "display column a bit wider when listing channels in double digits it moves the 1 down. As in 11-1 it's 11- then the 1 is moved down like so.

11-
1

same issue with the call letters too. WKRN-TV shows up as

WKRN-
TV

What browser are you using?

- Trip

What browser are you using?

- Trip

I'm using IE 8. Now the chanel numbers are showing up normally. Figures it's IE. Maybe I'll do this using Chrome.

I just attempted to fix the channel numbers. Sounds like it worked.

The call letters are a bit harder to fix, but I'll attack it.

- Trip

Is it better now?

- Trip

Is it better now?

- Trip

Yep it's fixed.

And I know you're going to kill me, but in the DX listings the same issue with "date" column and also DX stations appear to be listed in order by date and time added not channel number like local stations.

That's by design. I have written code to allow you to choose how to sort it, I just haven't implemented the switch on the page yet. I have a specific way I want to do it, but I don't know how to write the code for it. I plan to teach myself to do it at some point, just as I'm going to teach myself to write the code to allow you to upload a picture or something to go with the station.

- Trip

That's by design. I have written code to allow you to choose how to sort it, I just haven't implemented the switch on the page yet. I have a specific way I want to do it, but I don't know how to write the code for it. I plan to teach myself to do it at some point, just as I'm going to teach myself to write the code to allow you to upload a picture or something to go with the station.

- Trip

Ok that's cool. I like the adding the picture part.

Does the date look better?

- Trip

Trip,

My DX location ending me in China!!:o It's need East or West L* information

Like for example 35.1 North and 106.5 West....

But anyway keep up the good work.....:D

8-30-09

The Longitude has to be negative. I fixed it for you. :)

- Trip

Does the date look better?

- Trip

yes. thank you

Thank you Trip,

Now I am back in the good old USA!!:)


8-30-09

Does the date look better?

- Trip

Trip,

Yes, much better. The date now appears on one line. Very good.

I hope some of the other DXers at WTFDA give your site a try.

Steve

If you find any more of these little problems, please let me know. I'm using a screen that's 1680 pixels wide and I'm on Firefox in Linux, so there could be formatting problems that I can't see.

And I hope that some people who haven't added stations yet, like N5XZS, :D consider adding some stations to their locations!

- Trip

Since I just manually fixed another non-negative longitude, I've now put in red print that it needs to be negative.

- Trip

Since I just manually fixed another non-negative longitude, I've now put in red print that it needs to be negative.

- Trip

You should allow one more decimal digit in the Longitude in order to make up for the space that is occupied by the "-". Otherwise, the number of decimal digits for lat and lon are not the same.

Try now.

- Trip

You may also wish to force the longitude to negative and the lattitute to positive ... make it easier on the people entering their position.

I've now attempted to do so. Hopefully it works properly...

- Trip

Try now.

- Trip

It now accepts the digits, but when you go back and re-display them, they have been rounded down.
My 2 antennas are at different spots, but it is being rounded down to show them at the same spot.


How do we make use of this data to predict reception in other locations, or is this function not available yet?

There's still a fair amount of stuff left to be coded, but here's a preview: http://www.rabbitears.info/coverage.php?facid=25738

Really? It's rounding them? I have to check into that, I thought the database side of it would have handled it without issue...

- Trip

I'm seeing it on the database side. I tried doing a modification without going through the site and it won't stick.

I'm using a float to hold it but it doesn't seem to want to do what it's supposed to. It's probably something that I don't know how to do.

EDIT: I converted it from a float to a double and it seems to have corrected the underlying database issue, though now all the coordinates are expanded out to some amazing number of decimal places.

- Trip

More from Citadel:

KCAU Sioux City seeks (https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=787434&formid=911&q_num=5200) 43.9 kW on channel 9, and WHBF Rock Island-Quad Cities seeks (https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=787431&formid=911&q_num=5200) 33.7 kW on channel 4.

Trip... I registered and got all my stations listed, but I can't get it to accept my location coordinates. How are we supposed to enter them? Please give an example.

Thanks

Larry
SF

EDIT: I converted it from a float to a double and it seems to have corrected the underlying database issue, though now all the coordinates are expanded out to some amazing number of decimal places.

- Trip

It worked, all my digits hold.

I remember a project from a few years ago, when I had to go from Single to Double in order to keep it from showing money amounts over 9999.99 wrong. Maybe I have too many digits in order to put the pointer exactly where each antenna is.... LOL

Trip... I registered and got all my stations listed, but I can't get it to accept my location coordinates. How are we supposed to enter them? Please give an example.

Thanks

Larry
SF

They need to be in decimal. So, for example, my coordinates here at school are:

38.0414
-78.503

And you're going to need to edit each of your station reports and click Submit because it's calculated the distances based on whatever current coordinates you're using...

EDIT: I flipped your latitude to make it positive. I should have hard-coded that one too, that'll be done a little later in the day...

EDIT2: I grabbed your coordinates off of QRZ and put them in your location. You still need to click "Submit" on each station as I've apparently locked it to the user; I can't even make it work as admin just yet.

EDIT3: I managed to modify the code so that I could resubmit your things as admin, so it should, in theory, be correct now.

- Trip

More from Citadel:

KCAU Sioux City seeks (https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=787434&formid=911&q_num=5200) 43.9 kW on channel 9, and WHBF Rock Island-Quad Cities seeks (https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=787431&formid=911&q_num=5200) 33.7 kW on channel 4.

These are a refiling of something they had already applied for. I'm unsure why they filed these, and that's why I didn't post about them last night.

- Trip

These are a refiling of something they had already applied for. I'm unsure why they filed these, and that's why I didn't post about them last night.

- Trip

Simple. They're STA's to get them up to those power levels NOW, long-term application be hanged.

Simple. They're STA's to get them up to those power levels NOW, long-term application be hanged.

They never filed any long-term applications. They were both STAs.

First filing: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101326657&formid=911&fac_num=13950
Newest filing: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101331285&formid=911&fac_num=13950

- Trip

They need to be in decimal. So, for example, my coordinates here at school are:

38.0414
-78.503

And you're going to need to edit each of your station reports and click Submit because it's calculated the distances based on whatever current coordinates you're using...

EDIT: I flipped your latitude to make it positive. I should have hard-coded that one too, that'll be done a little later in the day...

EDIT2: I grabbed your coordinates off of QRZ and put them in your location. You still need to click "Submit" on each station as I've apparently locked it to the user; I can't even make it work as admin just yet.

EDIT3: I managed to modify the code so that I could resubmit your things as admin, so it should, in theory, be correct now.

- Trip

It's working great! Only thing I find that doesn't match reality is the "Q" color of the pins for the stations. Ones that come in solid... such as KMAX in my case, show red. I marked it as a DX station, but shouldn't it be green since I get it 100% of the time? The same goes for stations that are local but unreliable or borderline. They show green when they should be something between green and red. Other than that, the calculations, the format, the map... great!

Larry
SF

They never filed any long-term applications. They were both STAs.

First filing: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101326657&formid=911&fac_num=13950
Newest filing: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101331285&formid=911&fac_num=13950

- Trip

Whaaaa...? (Scratches head)

(Shakes head)

Not sure I understand what the purpose of KET-ED is ....


Not everyone has internet, let alone a high speed connection .... They used to feed the ED programming to schools(including for home schooling/etc) via Satellite (KET Star Channel), now it's via DTV, and anyone can utilize it of course :

http://www.ket.org/education/keted.htm

http://www.ket.org/dtv/schooldtv.htm

Quote from FAQ from 2nd link above :


How does conversion to digital affect schools?

As a good steward of state funding, KET always looks for the most cost-conscious and effective system for delivering its educational content. In this case, that means transmitting our school programming schedule on one of the new digital channels. This change has allowed the state to stop paying the enormous bill for satellite delivery services.


Oh, BTW, they recently expanded their HD schedule on KETHD to 5 hours nightly (7pm~12am ET -- beginning with Newshour at 7 ...) ...

Update: another useful link for info :

http://www.ket.org/education/

NRT delivery (such as via ATSC's 2.0 NRT(non-real time delivery) of programming(such as for the School use) seems to me to be another interesting future possibility ....

Whaaaa...? (Scratches head)

(Shakes head)

Yeah, that's what I said.

- Trip

It's working great! Only thing I find that doesn't match reality is the "Q" color of the pins for the stations. Ones that come in solid... such as KMAX in my case, show red. I marked it as a DX station, but shouldn't it be green since I get it 100% of the time? The same goes for stations that are local but unreliable or borderline. They show green when they should be something between green and red. Other than that, the calculations, the format, the map... great!

Larry
SF

If you get it 100% of the time, it's a local and should be listed as such (and be green) even if it's in another market. If a station is borderline, it should be marked local and yellow (which is between green and red :D).

See my listings for details: http://www.rabbitears.info/dxlocation.php?id=1

- Trip

Not everyone has internet, let alone a high speed connection .... They used to feed the ED programming to schools(including for home schooling/etc) via Satellite (KET Star Channel), now it's via DTV, and anyone can utilize it of course :

I know not everyone has a decent Internet connection, but every school and college does, leaving only home schoolers as the target audience. Is it really worth wasting 2.5 Mbps on 15 transmitters for a tiny audience like that, most of whom probably do have a decent Internet connection?

(Isn't Kentucky the state I read about where DSL is available to pretty much everyone?)

- Trip

Is it really worth wasting 2.5 Mbps on 15 transmitters for a tiny audience like that ....


It's hardly a "waste" --- How many stations have you seen that allways have at least a minimum of 1.5~3Mb/s in their null packet stream?

And, Who said the entire audience? For example, I"ve occasionally found some of the KET produced educational programming which airs on KET-ED quite interesting, and also have enjoyed the occasional airings there of "Fat Albert", as I did as a kid on Sat mornings 30+ years ago ...

Education is for everyone ....

Anyway, I'm sure they have their reasons for doing it like they do ....

Anyway, I'm sure they have their reasons for doing it like they do ....

I imagine so.

I would hope that at some point in the future they can at least make KET1 and KET2 available in widescreen SD. That'd be a nice compromise.

- Trip

I know not everyone has a decent Internet connection, but every school and college does

Nuh-uh. Lots of rural schools out there have nothing but dial-up.

Nuh-uh. Lots of rural schools out there have nothing but dial-up.

I was referring specifically to Kentucky. I would be very surprised if a state that likes to trumpet its rural broadband availability did not have decent access at all schools. Very surprised.

http://www.connectkentucky.org/

- Trip

The only FCC action this evening is from KYES. KYES seeks a channel 4 fill-in translator in Palmer AK and a channel 17 fill-in translator in Anchorage.

I'm not counting this as a VHF nightmare since they're applying for 4 as one of the fill-ins, and because they already have a channel 22 translator in Anchorage.

- Trip

I forget if I posted it yesterday, but the FCC approved the channel swap of KSCW/KWCH, and issued an NPRM for WTTA's requested move from 38 to 32.

Today, they approved the KBCI move from 28 to 9. I have a feeling Fisher will ultimately regret it.

- Trip

Today, they approved the KBCI move from 28 to 9. I have a feeling Fisher will ultimately regret it.

WHY would they do that? With all the issues with VHF that seems pretty stupid.

WHY would they do that? With all the issues with VHF that seems pretty stupid.

You're right. I have no idea why they're doing it.

- Trip