The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread [Text View] - Page 2

Nitewatchman

08-31-07, 02:10 AM

We have DTV operations on first adjacent channels 28,29,30,31,33,34,35,50,51 in Dayton/Cincinnati, all but ch 30(Dayton) and 50,51(Dayton) in that list being in Cincinnati. 28+29, and 34,35 being co-located, all of the Cincinnati towers involved being within a few miles or so of each other, all of Dayton towers being on the same "antenna farm".

There is also Analog9/digital 10(co-located) in Cincinnati as well as a few other first adjacent channel relationships with LP's. 24 Covington KY(cincinnati)/25 LP cincy, 40LP analog dayton/41 digital, 39digital(COL Richmond, IN)( transmits from just N of cincinnati/38 A LP cincy ... So far, at least from what I've heard for the MOST part it seems to be working out quite well.

CHANNEL SPACING REQUIREMENTS - from the FCC web site:
Assignments on adjacent channels are permitted as long as the transmitters are within a 14 mile range.
Channels 7-13:
Prohibited on same channel: 0-170 mi
Prohibited on adjacent channel: 14.29-68.35 mi
Channels 14-51:
Prohibited on same channel: 0-139 mi
Prohibited on adjacent channel: 14.91-68.35 mi

Note on spacing requirements:
The "doughnut" shaped exclusion zone for adjacent channels recognizes that adjacent stations only present a problem when there is a strong station right next to a weak station you want to watch.

Larry
SF

I think in at least some cases It turns out to be a little more complicated than that ...

Those rules as are specified in more detail here in CFR 47, $76.623 (http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2007/73/623/) apply to applications for new DTV allotments or changes to DTV allotments.

What was used by FCC in the 90's to develop the original DTV table of allotments was apparently a little more lienient than that in at least some circumstances.

So, how does what happened for the "original" DTV allotment table apply to the post-transistion situation?

For one thing, because, most stations which elected to remain on their Current DTV channel assignment are going to be using the same facilities post-transistion as they are now.

Here's an example. WXIX-DT 29 Cincinnati, WRGT-DT 30 Dayton. Their transmit sites are about 44 miles apart. Both will be remaining where they are now, presumably with the same facilities they are using, now.

In the first round of elections, WRGT-DT DID at first file an election form to move to their analog channel, 45 post-transistion. However, they soon received an interference conflict notice from FCC. I have no idea what that letter said, but I would guess it might involve an interference conflict with WXIN-DT 45, Indianapolis, which elected to keep their digital where it is now, on 45.

Here is WRGT-DT's predicted 41dbu service contour map from FCC site :

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT421344.html

Here is WXIX-DT's predicted 41dbu service contour map from FCC site :

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT518618.html

Notice that areas to the South of WXIX-DT transmit location, and areas to the North of WRGT-DT transmit location are in the predicted service area of BOTH stations.

I haven't had the time to do so yet, but I have contemplated going to www.tvfool.com and plugging in some receive locations within the service contour of both stations, but just to the North of WRGT, and just to the South of WXIX and see what it predicts for either of those stations, the interest being the difference between the two .... somehow, I would not be surprised if in some locations the difference may be very close to, or exceed the D/U ratios for 1st adjacent channel DTV specified by FCC ...

I do know that of least one viewer, about on WXIX-DT's 41dbu contour+Just north of WRGT's tower has reported issues that seemed to have began when WRGT-DT went from using a ~15KW ERP STA to 425KW ERP full power operation ... He also reported the same regarding reception of WKRC-DT 31 Cincinnati, which will be moving to 12 after analog shut off ...
---------

Its water under the bridge, now, but Personally, I feel this particular example demonstrates a fallacy in the rules that governed the channel election process. Here's why ..

For one thing, because, in some cases, stations are staying "put" on channel assignments which were allocated as part of the "orignal" DTV allotment table, on possibly less than desireable assignments during the transistion, less than desireable in some cases perhaps because of the fact the orignal DTV table of allotments were developed for "during the transistion" when BOTH analog and digital stations were on the air, and the "crowded spectrum" nature that implies also implies that it was necessary for FCC to "cut corners" in some places so all stations would "fit" during the transistion ...

For another, for example, In this case of WXIX and WRGT, since neither of the stations "aren't moving from where they are", per the channel election rules, both stations are just "fine and dandy" where they are ... However, if either station wanted to move to their analog channel assignment(which WRGT tried), they would have to protect OTHER stations, such as for example, WXIN-DT 45 Indy, and WBKI-DT 19 (19 is WXIX's analog channel) Campbellsville, KY ... So, in other words, there are problems for them either way ..

And, in a sense, since the channel election rules basically said that stations remaining ON their current DTV channel had full interference protection, and stations moving to their analog channel assignments would have to PROTECT other stations(with stations with out-of core digital channel assignments given some "lieniency/preference" in this regard) Tsome(or many?) stations were probably "discouraged" from moving to their analog channel assignment for that reason ..

How unusual this particular example of WXIX-DT and WRGT-DT is, I have no idea ....

MeowMeow

08-31-07, 11:52 AM

antennas are big and ugly, not everyone has the expertise to get the job done, there are not many antenna installers around anymore, installations are not cut and dry , inside installations are problematic, the entire united states is not flat, there are too many variables with reception, too many opinions on equipment selection, antennas are not an exact science, startup costs are high, not all stations transmit in hd... and you need a ladder.

Let me add:

#5: This requires thinking? I barely passed Algebra I.

Nitewatchman

08-31-07, 02:56 PM

I am curious to know how the issues regarding excuses why people don't use antennas have anything to do with the Final DTV table of allotments .....

I will say this ...
As for broadcasters transmitters+towers and the like being "hinderance" to them other than to help them secure cable or satellite carrige ... Broadcasters who feel that way(and I do know some of them do feel that way, maybe even many of them) to the extent it effects their OTA service really shouldn't be allowed the privilage to use our public airwaves, IMHO .... Better things can be done with it ...

MeowMeow

08-31-07, 05:06 PM

I am curious to know how the issues regarding excuses why people don't use antennas have anything to do with the Final DTV table of allotments .....

I'll quote myself, annoying though that may be to others...

From the standpoint of business relationships, there is no coin in promoting OTA television. And even if there was, how many store associates really intend to waste their time explaining that OTA digital is not just superior to old school NTSC, but to cable and satellite?

But, yes, we have diverged. My apologies. I was just trying to make a small point earlier that OTA needs all of us making a more active effort to create converts if we love it so much.

Nitewatchman

08-31-07, 05:58 PM

My apologies.

No need to apologize ... I wasn't "singling anyone out" in particular, just saying it seems to me we've wondered a bit too far off topic, as there are other threads(or a new one if necessary) which seem to me would be more appropriate places to discuss those issues .. As I just can't seem to see how "how many people use antennas" and why they don't/etc, has anything to do, or even remotely relates to the "DTV table of allotments" ....

I was just trying to make a small point earlier that OTA needs all of us making a more active effort to create converts if we love it so much.

Good point ... IMHO, I would say that OTA needs the broadcasters making a more active effort in that regard ... It needs the retailers too, but for instance, if the broadcasters *really wanted* to, they could do something about that as well ... Imagine a news report examining which retailers in the area have DTV receivers or antennas available, or on display, or antennas on their roofs(like TV stores USED to have in the 70's and early 80's when I was growing up) to help demonstrate OTA TV .... Imagine a FM station in the late 60's or early 70's that "didn't care" whether or not retailers had FM receivers available .... Yeah, I know why it's that way ... Satellite and cable, that's not my point -- OTA broadcasting *is* the actual business OTA broadcasters are in, and if they don't want to *BE* broadcasters, well, see my last post .....

I know I(and probably most of us here who care about these things) do what we can to "promote" OTA ... But I don't see that much from broadcasters, on the air ... Do see some of it though ... for instance, one of our local broadcasters recently began doing HD local news broadcasts, and the first day of HD local news from them when they talked about it, one of the first things they mentioned was receiving their HD digital broadcasts OTA with an antenna .... It got "top billing" over the info they provided for cable or satellite reception of their digital station (and their digital station IS carried on local cable systems in HD as well as via D* LiL) ....

That being said ...From what I have seen, We have groups such as NAB+MSTV looking after "OTA" and OTA TV broadcasting in many aspects related to congress and FCC ... From what I've seen, the "posisition" those groups take, and also what broadcasters interests are, *usually*(but not allways) also *just happen* to conicide with what is of interest to OTA viewers (things they are interested in that *allow* broadcasters to provide we OTA viewers with good service) ... HOWEVER, I do often wonder if it also would be a good thing if we OTA viewers(especially perhaps OTA HD viewers) had our own "group" looking after our interests, rather than "other groups" which seem to think they have our interests at heart (mostly involving farming, senior citizens, low income people/etc) ...... There just doesn't seem to be a group like that looking after our interests in congress or submitting comments to FCC on various DTV rulemaking proceedings ...

Of course, probably none of us (and certianly not me) have the time or motivation to organize some sort of "grassroots effort" for something like that .....

See, I can make Off topic posts too (sorry ;)

MeowMeow

08-31-07, 07:40 PM

We're all good. I suspect we're somewhat off-topic because we're sorting of waiting that last settling of the DTV allotments.

For my part, to be on-topic, I'm most worried about the government rendering a final decision about white space devices in the DTV ranges. I'm still fairly hopeful that when the number of channels drops nearly in half with the analog shutdown that we're going to see a significant reduction in interference.

The nice thing is it looks like we're finally coming to a conclusion. I'd be surprised if Feb 2009 is not now set in stone.

foxeng

08-31-07, 07:57 PM

I'd be surprised if Feb 2009 is not now set in stone.

It has been set in stone for a while now. This is the result of that. No one is talking about a delay and hasn't been since the bill was signed. Everyone in government wants this done so they can stop talking about it.

milehighmike

08-31-07, 10:20 PM

I have a couple of questions for the experts that have been posting to this thread:

1. Would it have been wise for the FCC to have required stations broadcasting from the same antenna farm (or, say, within 10 miles of each other) to use continguous channels, such as 19, 20, 21, 22, etc. for their final digital channels? It seems from reading threads like this one that some of the interference issues would not have occurred and there would not have been the problems with WBBM and WABC finding a "home" and the low VHF 6 assignment for WPVI. I'm thinking that maybe the stations were given too much freedom to pick a final digital channel which is part of the problem of potentially limited availability of channels in some geographic areas, particularly the east coast. If the channels were contiguous, there wouldn't be, for example, unused channels in-between occupied channels that can't be used due to co-channel interference. Just a thought.

2. Could someone explain what horizontal, veritical, and circular polarization is and why it seems television seems to have settled on horizontal?

Larry Kenney

09-01-07, 01:28 AM

1. Would it have been wise for the FCC to have required stations broadcasting from the same antenna farm (or, say, within 10 miles of each other) to use continguous channels, such as 19, 20, 21, 22, etc. for their final digital channels?

We have such a situation here in the San Francisco-San Jose market. There are four stations transmitting from the hills above Fremont, all within a mile or two of each other, on channels 49, 50, 51 and 52. After February, 2009, 49, 50 and 51 will remain. 52 has to move, since it's outside the new band, and will be going back to it's analog channel 36.

We'll also have several channel groupings for the stations transmitting from Sutro Tower in San Francisco after the analog shut down. We'll have 29 and 30, 33 and 34, 38 and 39, and 43, 44 and 45.

Larry
SF

foxeng

09-01-07, 09:21 AM

1. Would it have been wise for the FCC to have required stations broadcasting from the same antenna farm (or, say, within 10 miles of each other) to use continguous channels, such as 19, 20, 21, 22, etc. for their final digital channels?

The issue that really has formed the post transition channel line up is rooted in the analog world. From the start, the FCC had to protect analog stations on the air during the transition. They plugged digital stations in where there was spectrum space that would not cause undo interference with existing analog stations. Hence the reason for some stations getting directional digital patterns when their analog patterns were omni. In some areas they could allocate contiguous channels and not cause undo interference and did.

Fast forward 10 years, and we are now looking at the final Table of Assignments. In that 10 years, the FCC back slid about stations being able to go back to their analog channels, changed interference criteria, seemingly on the fly. Denying some stations the channels they elected with interference being stated as the reason even after stations submitted evidence to the contrary, but allowing other stations to increase interference to existing digital stations, also seemingly on a whim.

The question becomes the cost of many stations having to build out on digital channels, just to be told they will have to build again to get on contiguous channels. The political backlash from a move like that would have been huge because you are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for the easiest moves.

I personally believe that once the dust settles and we have actually turned off the analogs, a number of stations will ask to change channels to gain coverage and you may see stations co-locate to tower farms to save money and they will ask for contiguous channels, but probably not in the numbers you would like to see.

2. Could someone explain what horizontal, veritical, and circular polarization is and why it seems television seems to have settled on horizontal?

The difference of the polarizations is the angle at which the signal travels over the surface of the earth. Horizontal travels flat, just like you see TV antennas now. Vertical travels at right angles to the earth like you see in CB antennas and AM antennas on cars. CP travels in a helical spiral pattern but there are two pols with this mode as well. Left hand and right hand rotation. Each mode gives about 20 db of isolation from each other. Meaning a horizontal signal received on a vertical antenna is 20 db lower in signal strength than the same signal in the same location at the same receive height being received by a horizontal antenna.

Each 3 db you either half the signal strength or double the signal strength, depending on which way you are moving. So if you start out with a 100 watt signal and you insert 20 db of loss, it is same thing as a 0.78125 watt signal! That is why sats use the different pols. It allows them to use the channels twice. Once in the vertical pol and once in the horizontal pol to maximize the spectrum use.

As for the reason why TV uses horizontal, my guess would be because all broadcasting started out in the horizontal mode, including AM, and where there was a need to change pols for AM and FM radio, being the vertical receive antennas on cars, particularly since a 1/4 wave antenna on AM is around 200 ft long, that was never the case with TV, even though CP does do a better job for TV than horizontal. Even today on FM, many transmit antennas are made with both vertical for cars and horizontal for home listening with TV/FM antennas. By the time it was decided what to do with TV (in the 70's), the horizontal receive TV antenna had been in use almost 30 years and to get people to change would have been a nightmare so it has remained horizontal. There was talk early on to make digital TV CP but it never gained the needed traction because you then ran into the debate of which CP pol, left hand or right hand would become the standard and what would happen if someone bought the wrong CP mode antenna? Once the CP antenna is made in one direction, it can't be easily changed unlike the current antennas that you just rotate 90 degrees to change from one pol to another.

All of the issues that people bring up here were WELL debated back in the beginning and many were compromises to keep things moving. Yep, management by committee all the way!

HIPAR

09-01-07, 10:36 AM

I have a couple of questions for the experts that have been posting to this thread:

2. Could someone explain what horizontal, veritical, and circular polarization is and why it seems television seems to have settled on horizontal?

Way back when, when scientists were trying to understand the mysteries of electricity and magnetism, there was evidence that the two could be related. When James Clerk Maxwell presented his equations the foundation for all things electromagnetic was established.

When an electrical charge is accelerated through a conductor by an electric field, there is an associated magnetic field generated. The magnetic lines are perpendicular to the electric field.

Now when the charge is accelerated back and forth through the conductor with a frequency, some neat things happen. As electric lines of force build to a maximum, decay to zero and repeat the process with opposite polarity, the magnetic lines go through the same process except their maximums occur when the electric lines are at their minimum. Energy is being transferred back and forth between the electric and magnetic fields.

Somehow, a distant conductor under the influence of this system is able to extract energy from the fields and guess what, actual power is transmitted through space. Maxwell can even tell you how fast the energy propagates based upon the properties of the transmission medium. We see the light and watch over the air TV.

How does all of this get involved with polarization. By convention we say the signal is polarized in the direction of the electric lines of force.

So, brush up on your vector calculus and work out a few boundary conditions to observe what happens when signals are reflected.

Blame it all on Maxwell, a very great man.

--- CHAS

Nitewatchman

09-01-07, 02:40 PM

For my part, to be on-topic, I'm most worried about the government rendering a final decision about white space devices in the DTV ranges.

Those who haven't seen it might want to read this document, A FCC report and order on the issue from 2006 :

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-156A1.pdf

In that document, among other things they excluded channel 37(used for radio astronomy), and ch 52-69(which won't be "broadcast" spectrum) from use by the unlicensed devices. There is also additional discussion about excluding channel 2~4 and channel 14~20, but they haven't made a decision in that yet.

Here's some more of what it says that is of particular interest, paragraphs 16~18 :

16. In order to provide sufficient time for the Commission and industry to develop appropriate technical standards for TV band products as well as lead time for industry to design and produce new products, we intend to adopt a Second Report and Order specifying final requirements for devices in the TV bands in the fall of 2007. This will allow the Commission’s Laboratory to begin accepting applications for certification of these devices in the TV bands by late 2007. Certification will be granted if the application, upon review, is found to comply with the new technical rules and will allow the manufacture and shipment of products to distribution points. However, as we discuss further below, these devices will not be allowed to be available for sale at retail until after the DTV transition ends on February 17, 2009.

17. We are convinced based on the record in this proceeding that we can adopt rules to allow fixed low power operation on unused spectrum in the TV bands without causing harmful interference to authorized services. There are several factors supporting this conclusion. First, upon completion of the DTV transition, there will be significant unused TV spectrum available in many areas in the country, either because of the separations required between authorized stations to avoid interference or because available TV channels have not been assigned and other services are not using vacant channels. Also,based on our experience in developing rules for U-NII devices, we believe it is reasonable to expect that existing technology, such as that used for spectrum sensing, can be adapted to allow devices to identify unused spectrum in a given geographic area and thus allow sharing of the TV bands. Further, we note that the IEEE 802.22 working group with broad based support is in the process of developing a standard to enable fixed devices to successfully share spectrum with authorized services in the TV bands. Finally,
these devices will operate at relatively low power levels and, as several commenters noted, it is easier to protect incumbent operations in the TV bands, including wireless microphones, when devices are limited to fixed operation.

18. Non-fixed devices (e.g., personal/portable devices as discussed in the Notice) generally pose a greater risk of harmful interference to authorized operations than fixed devices because such devices may have antennas that are less efficient and may be in a less advantageous position for sensing of incumbent transmissions (e.g., in a room versus on a 10-meter mast), especially given that they will change location, thus making reliable identification of unused frequencies substantially more difficult. Also, it may be difficult for TV and other users to locate a non-fixed device that causes interference because it frequently changes location, whereas a fixed device that causes interference can be located more easily. Further, we
note that the developing IEEE 802.22 standard is, at least at this time, limited to fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint operations and does not address the non-fixed personal/portable class of devices that the Commission proposed to allow in the Notice. We therefore find that additional information is needed on whether and how personal/portable devices can use spectrum sensing or other techniques to identify unused frequencies. More generally, we ask parties responding to the Further Notice to address whether and how non-fixed unlicensed devices could operate in the TV bands under the different sharing schemes under consideration in this proceeding.

I certianly am not even convinced they "can adopt rules to allow fixed low power operation on unused spectrum in the TV bands without causing harmful interference to authorized services." ....

We'll see what the rules they "intend" to adopt on this in Fall 2007 say, I suppose ...

What they've done with BPL doesn't increase my confidence in FCC regarding this matter, either ....

MeowMeow

09-01-07, 03:20 PM

In addition, the final rules we adopt will allow the marketing of TV band devices to commence on February 18, 2009, after the transition to DTV service is complete and all TV stations are in operation on their permanent DTV channels.

Sounds like they've already made a decision.

It's a bad idea. Y'know, because it really sounds like a bad idea.

- - -

I want to toss a question about this whole notion of spectrum sensing that the FCC mentions. The idealized version goes that devices automatically scan the air and detect for TV signals in those bands. Can this even remotely work?

My first thought is, would any commercial grade portable device actually have any receive mechanism sensitive enough to dig out OTA TV signals in a normal situation? Half the time my antenna and tuner have to a hard time with this, and they're built to care about finding the signals. And they're up on the roof.

Are they really claiming it will be feasible for a laptop inside a building to sniff out an OTA signal at or even below ground-level? Cost-effectively?

Does anyone really think that some company in China is going to give a rat's ass about compliance with this? These people put lead paint on kids' toys! They're not going to care whether their device interferes with my antenna.

This whole idea is a heap of trouble waiting to happen.

Nitewatchman

09-01-07, 03:37 PM

Sounds like they've already made a decision.

That was my impression -- For the FIXED devices, jury's still out on the non-fixed devices(that's what the recent prototypes tested by FCC were which failed to properly locate DTV broadcast signals in the test, non-fixed devices) ... They just haven't come up with exactly HOW they're going to do it, yet .... We should find out soon ...

It's a bad idea. Y'know, because it really sounds like a bad idea.

It *is* a bad idea because it is a bad idea ;)

Nitewatchman

09-01-07, 04:19 PM

Sorry for the double post ...

I want to toss a question about this whole notion of spectrum sensing that the FCC mentions. The idealized version goes that devices automatically scan the air and detect for TV signals in those bands. Can this even remotely work?

Personally, I don't see how.

Thinking about it, The best way I can think of how to use these things would be for the devices to use a GPS receiver to establish the device's location, and then connect to an ACCURATE database+signal prediction software to run a longely rice study for the device's specific location -- similar to it getting info similar to what you get if you run the signal prediction software here :

www.tvfool.com

And, in that case Only if signals from authorized services on any given channel are predicted to be WELL BELOW some predicted signal level for any given location should that device be allowed to transmit there .... A good "cut off" point where the things could be allowed to operate being someting in the range of less than -120dbm maybe ? Or maybe it needs to even be even a little lower than that (which would probably mean the things wouldn't be able to operate on ANY channel at all in some if not many areas) -- It needs to protect "fringe area", and BEYOND fringe area viewers IMO, not just necessarily those locations predicted to be within say, the 41dbu service contour of a UHF DTV station .... Right now, people are receiving excellent, drop out free OTA reception from BEYOND station's predicted coverage areas ....

But of course that would *still* not prevent harmful interference from occuring to "authorized services" received via enhanced signal propagation, when it occurs, nor would it prevent signals from authorized services propagating via enahanced signal propagation(such as "tropo" or "E-skip") from interfering with the unlicensed devices ... I realize the former isn't even something they are concerned, or care a whit about, but the latter, you'd think they would be ...

Then, there are also the "non-co channel" interference issues for these things and single-conversion Superhetrodyne DTV receivers addressed in various columns written by Charles Rhoades to consider ....

Does anyone really think that some company in China is going to give a rat's ass about compliance with this? These people put lead paint on kids' toys! They're not going to care whether their device interferes with my antenna.

Not to mention what someone who gets their hands on something like that who may take great fun in finding out just what they can do with it ... (such as "hey, let's see what we can do with this thing and see if we can "mess up" the neighbor's TV reception) .... Also, what's going to keep a "Fixed" device from being moved? Is a fixed device going to detect that it's been moved and adjust accordingly?(that would seem to me to only be possible with the use of a GPS receiver in the thing) ...

Also, when interference DOES occur, exactly how are we going to be able to identify it? The "authorized" users of the spectrum(THE TV stations) can't go out to every house to detirmine why your "DTV reception is breaking up" ...

And, it's not like with analog TV where you can see interference "right on screen" ... How is the user going to know if his DTV reception is breaking up because of weak signal/fading, multipath the receiver can't correct for, OR interference from Unlicensed device or anything else? ARe they going to start to mandate Spectrum analyzer's in all sets ? LOL ....

This whole idea is a heap of trouble waiting to happen.

Yep, I agree .... A heap of trouble for OTA TV viewers at least .... But there are plenty of smart folks(maybe not necessarily "RF smart" folks, probably) out there that think it will work Great !

MeowMeow

09-02-07, 12:41 AM

jury's still out on the non-fixed devices(that's what the recent prototypes tested by FCC were which failed to properly locate DTV broadcast signals in the test, non-fixed devices)

Having made a read of the full PDF, my impression is that the sensing technology is based on a system implemented to broadcast in the same band as radar.

Now, my understanding is that radar doesn't need much room to avoid interference. It lacks anything as complex as even analog TV, let alone HDTV. Also, a radar sweep has to successfully return back to the source once every 12 seconds.

So, really the sensing technology has proven in one very limited situation with a fairly simple and old technology.

The next question is: do the devices really even need this band? My understanding is that the cell phone companies decided to eat 52-69 rather than any lower block of channels because the signals carried too far. Considering that the #1 use for the white space ought to be WiFi and that WiFi is notoriously unsecure, aren't we inviting even further trouble for the portable devices?

I could see an unskilled WiFi hacker having a party with white space devices and the owners pulling their hair out trying to figure out how it is happening. I can already pull in most the neighbor's wireless routers within several blocks just by sitting out on my sun porch. I had to stop letting Windows select a default because of their signals were actually stronger than mine.

I really hope someone with a half-decent tech background gets a say in this before they render this decision.

HIPAR

09-02-07, 09:37 AM

I scanned over the FCC test report for the 'devices'. The testing was actually very nicely engineered.

I always wonder what the FCC engineering staff actually thinks about these kinds of matters. One thing is for certain. With Intel and Microsoft wanting these 'devices' to happen, they will.

--- CHAS

Nitewatchman

09-02-07, 01:23 PM

The testing was actually very nicely engineered.

Yes .. For those who haven't seen that, they're here(PDF) :

Initial Evaluation of the Performance of Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices is here:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A1.pdf

Direct-Pickup Interference Tests of three consumer digital Cable Television Receivers available in 2005 is here :

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.pdf

Regarding the first document above, I particularly liked that they did field tests at residences of actual DTV viewers in addition to the bench tests ... Also, although they offered the evidence as anecdotal, I also liked how they performed the OTA interference test ...

It would have been nice if they had had more prototypes to test, however ... Especially would have liked to have seen test results for devices using some of the other methods which could be used to "detect" signals from "authorized services", as well as for some fixed prototypes ...

Hopefully there will be more such tests to come, and hopefully they will be "paid attention to", so to speak ....

BTW, you'll find an interesting mix of politics and engineering in comments submitted to FCC for this proceeding, a list of which can be pulled up at ECFS search page here by inputting "04-186" (not the quotation marks) in the "Proceeding box" ... (use the view/etc. links for each entry to download the actual comments, they're in PDF format)

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

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

Regarding the politics involved -- In addition to what the "white spaces coalition" and groups such as "New America Foundation" want .. It seems to me it may also be about certian folks in congress who are pushing these things in hopes of wanting to do something about, or at least show that they're doing something about increasing the availabiity of hi-speed broadband access ..... Including presumably for some rural folks like me who do not have access to things such as hi-speed internet connections via cable ....

Which on the surface seems like it is probably a worthy political goal -- HOWEVER -- From a "political" standpoint, I wonder, does it make sense to encourage this pollution of the TV broadcast spectrum, given that in the future, it's allways a possibility that the broadcast spectrum, one day, *could* be repacked+more portions of it "auctioned off" ? From that perspective, who would want to bid on spectrum which is polluted with these things? [update: unless this can be a way for the microsoft+intel's to not only get their "foot in the door", but also as a means to an end -- such as eventually giving them a means to "take over the entire kingdom", so to speak -- they do seem to have a history with that sort of thing[end update] ....

Crazy as it may sound ... I think these things may actually turn out to be a *good* thing for any broadcasters out there who are, or would be solely using their "towers and transmitters" as a means to help secure cable and satellite coverage (well at least if the head-end doesn't receive the signal OTA) .... As, when/if these devices render the spectrum useless for anything else, it may be somewhat of a guarentee that the broadcasters won't ever have to "give up" their spectrum, as no one else will want it after it's polluted with these things ...

If It actually *could* be done without creating "harmful interference", then I suppose it would be a good thing all around ... Problem is, again, if they are wrong(which I think they are), once the things are out there there will be NO bringing them back ... IF it doesn't work, It will be too late for them to "change their minds" about it, and it will be the OTA viewers and broadcasters who are "stuck" with the problem, just like we+the broadcasters were "stuck" with the problem of transistioning to DTV ....

Falcon_77

09-03-07, 07:40 PM

Does anyone have a list of post-transition channel elections that include the call sign? The list I have has the facility ID's, but not the call signs.

I have an older list that has drop down selections by State, etc. along with call signs, but that was before the final list was approved. I don't remember who made that one.

Thank you,

Nitewatchman

09-03-07, 08:38 PM

The channel election TCD's with Callsigns are in Excel spreadsheets downloadable FCC site from under the respecitve dates, and at URL noted below :

1st and 2nd round tentative channel designations - "attachment" link to excel file under the 5/23/06 date at www.fcc.gov/dtv

3rd round tentative channel designations - "attachment" link to excel file found under the 8/29/06 date at www.fcc.gov/dtv

-----------

However, i suppose it would be nice to have a list of the New DTV Table of allotments with the callsigns, as there have been some(relatively few) changes since the channel election TCD's ...

The facility Id's in the Appendix B (and maybe a seperate file with the appendix G proposed changes until those are decided upon) excel files for the DTV table of allotment docuements under the 8/6/07 date at www.fcc.gov/dtv contain the DTV table of allotment info (+ a correction to the table as specified in the document listed under the 8/14/07 date) Just need to be "matched up" with the callsigns for those facility Id's like they are in the TCD files ...

Falcon_77

09-05-07, 12:02 PM

Thank you for the info. It appears that I can simply incorporate the latest changes from the last exhibit into my existing database.

I also had a question on power levels. Is 1000kW going to remain the maximum for UHF? It is my understanding that the power levels for digital are measured differently than analog, but the effective range still seems to be lower.

Are digital power level increases after analog shut-off just a bad rumor?

KE0MI

09-05-07, 02:14 PM

The 1 megawatt level average power is the maximum for DTV as far as I can tell. The interesting thing at UHF is that a lack of radio wave bending over the optical horizon required the high ERP on UHF in an attempt to replicate the analog VHF coverage area, which has a better ability to extend the radio horizon. The fact is that at UHF frequencies, approximately 90% of the transmit power required to reach over the optical horizon serves to expand the coverage area by only 10%. This exponential increase in power compared to the gain in coverage area become a true case of the law of diminishing return.

HIPAR

09-05-07, 02:55 PM

The fact is that at UHF frequencies, approximately 90% of the transmit power required to reach over the optical horizon serves to expand the coverage area by only 10%. This exponential increase in power compared to the gain in coverage area become a true case of the law of diminishing return.

The signal loss from penetrating the vegetation at UHF is also a factor that complicates reaching the radio horizon. I have always found receiving UHF to be somewhat problematic.

--- CHAS

MeowMeow

09-06-07, 04:02 AM

Do the hi-VHF digitals level-peg with the UHF digitals in terms of performance? Obviously, being at least 200 MHz lower in freq they should carry further.

However, I'm a bit worried because three of my channels are going to 8, 11 and 13 in 2009 and I'm 60mi from all three.

Falcon_77

09-06-07, 04:11 PM

foxeng

09-06-07, 05:09 PM

It is my understanding that VHF-HI has a longer effective range than UHF and is closer to VHF-LO in range. It is also not subject to as much noise as VHF-LO.

This is probably why VHF-HI channels are the most popular in the final DTV election table, with 25% of stations choosing channels 7-13 when they represent only 14% of the post transition spectrum.

No channel is a panacea. Each one has its own unique issues; from pulse noise, natural and/or man made; to coverage issues because of terrain, or lack there of; to operational costs and whether or not they even had an opinion to go somewhere else. Many stations in the beginning thought they did only to be turned by the FCC. Each station had to evaluate their unique situation to see what worked for them and thus the table we see now. Some choices will work out, others will not. Only time will tell which ones do and what stations may do post transition. At this point, it is all a crap shoot.

MeowMeow

09-06-07, 11:27 PM

At this point, it is all a crap shoot.

Does the FCC plan to be tolerant to a lot of reallocations after Feb 2009?

I'd imagine that since there is the first license holder rule in place -- and that seems to be religiously enforced if the first license holder decides to pick a fight -- that a lot of stations looking to take a 7-13 may have to wait to see if the first license holder vacates the space.

I guess my question then is, with the reduced ERP, will the hi-VHF channels perform as well as the UHF channels? Some of those VHF channels look like they could be powered off an old potato battery setup from fourth grade.

foxeng

09-07-07, 07:40 AM

Does the FCC plan to be tolerant to a lot of reallocations after Feb 2009?

Post transition, stations will be able to file for channel changes, but it will not be the streamline process it has been pre-transition. Stations will have to file the full packages for channel change as they have had to do in the past before the digital transition began. It could take a station several years to get a new channel assignment, first getting the table of assignments changed and then filing for the CP to build on the new channel and then the time to actually build it..

I'd imagine that since there is the first license holder rule in place -- and that seems to be religiously enforced if the first license holder decides to pick a fight -- that a lot of stations looking to take a 7-13 may have to wait to see if the first license holder vacates the space.

If a station is already there, there is nothing any other station can do unless or until a current station changes.

I guess my question then is, with the reduced ERP, will the hi-VHF channels perform as well as the UHF channels? Some of those VHF channels look like they could be powered off an old potato battery setup from fourth grade.

You have to remember one thing, digital coverage was based on analog coverage no matter what channel the two signals were on, based on what is already there. The coverage for the final table is based on what will fit, channel not withstanding taking into consideration what is already there. Most stations did maximize in the beginning which did help in the final table assignments.

Each band performs differently, no matter what the modulation scheme is. But yes, VHF high band should perform as well digitally as it did in analog service. I know of several stations with VHF high band digital channels and they do quite well with power levels comparable to their analog coverages. It is a fact that the VHF high band will have less stations on it post transition than they do now so with decreased noise and interference, those stations with allocations on VHF high should see an improvement of coverage, just like UHF stations will also see an improvement for the same reason, less interference. This is backed up by real time observations across the country by early adapters who had no trouble picking up low power stations in the beginning and now have trouble picking up those same stations now that they have increased powered. Remember, 1800 analog stations will cease operations Feb 17, 2009 reducing band congestion by almost 50%. That will play a huge part in reception no matter what channel the station is on.

MeowMeow

09-07-07, 11:02 AM

Fair enough. Thanks for the detailed response. I guess I will do my best to look forward to Feb 2009, as opposed to worrying.

HIPAR

09-07-07, 03:31 PM

Fair enough. Thanks for the detailed response. I guess I will do my best to look forward to Feb 2009, as opposed to worrying.

When I lived in Cherry Hill NJ (near Philadelphia) during the pre-cable era I used a log periodic about 30 feet above the ground to receive New York. I had no problems receiving any of the 100 miles distant VHF channels. We had a Zenith set with vacuum tubes that provided very good pictures. I believe the signals would exceed the digital threshold today.

I have no reliable over-the-air television here in the Pocono Mountains of NE Pa so I never worried about Feb 2009. If I were building a DTV station here, I would want it to be allocated on Channel 11, 12 or 13.

--- CHAS

MeowMeow

09-07-07, 11:36 PM

When I lived in Cherry Hill NJ (near Philadelphia) during the pre-cable era I used a log periodic about 30 feet above the ground to receive New York. I had no problems receiving any of the 100 miles distant VHF channels. We had a Zenith set with vacuum tubes that provided very good pictures. I believe the signals would exceed the digital threshold today.

But, do understand that the digital VHF channels are going to be transmitting at about a fifth the power of the analogs. That's why I am concerned.

I probably shouldn't be, as I live down in a valley, so the VHF will likely be a net benefit for me.

HIPAR

09-08-07, 11:38 AM

But, do understand that the digital VHF channels are going to be transmitting at about a fifth the power of the analogs. That's why I am concerned.

Yes, I have seen references to 6 dB (or greater) advantages for the digital 8VSB system over the current NTSC waveform.

Keep in mind that detectability generally depends on received signal power strength vs the total noise power at the receiver. Granted, raw transmitter power is an important factor in the equation but other factors come into play.

The 8VSB digital system packs the power into a channel more efficiently. The redundant signal components are better removed by advanced filtering. There is no aural carrier. There is no 3.5 MHz Chroma carrier. The power is forced to be distributed uniformly within the 6 MHz wide channel.

So waveform design is always a factor when analyzing a communications signaling scheme. Let's see what actually happens in 2009.

--- CHAS

Falcon_77

09-09-07, 11:07 AM

But, do understand that the digital VHF channels are going to be transmitting at about a fifth the power of the analogs. That's why I am concerned.

As I understand it, DTV ERP is rated by Average Power, whereas the Analog stations are rated by Peak Power. So, it becomes a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

Digital vs. Analog ERP (http://www.tv-technology.com/pages/s.0072/t.1644.html)

foxeng

09-09-07, 01:27 PM

As I understand it, DTV ERP is rated by Average Power, whereas the Analog stations are rated by Peak Power. So, it becomes a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.[/URL]

This is true. Digital peak is a little over 4 times the average where analog peak is a little over 2 times average.

MeowMeow

09-09-07, 11:12 PM

More detailed replies! Thanks. I need all the reassurance I can get, because I really don't want to be up on my roof in Feb 2009.

arxaw

09-18-07, 08:40 AM

...I'm a bit worried because three of my channels are going to 8, 11 and 13 in 2009 and I'm 60mi from all three.I get KAFT-DT (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=2767), VHF ch9 @ ~50mi out from the xmitter @ 100% signal strength. Xmitter power is 19kW ERP.

Biggest annoying problem, is impulse noise interference, from electrical stuff in the house and thunderstorms, which aren't always even close by. It causes very annoying dropouts. The vid dropouts can be overlooked, but when the audio drops at a very important part, it's very frustrating.

I also get KOLR-DT ch 52 perfectly right now (~70mi away). They will move from ch 52 to ch 10, post analog. Time will tell if it also has impulse noise interference.

MeowMeow

09-18-07, 11:45 AM

I get KAFT-DT (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=2767), VHF ch9 @ ~50mi out from the xmitter @ 100% signal strength. Xmitter power is 19kW ERP.

Biggest annoying problem, is impulse noise interference, from electrical stuff in the house and thunderstorms, which aren't always even close by. It causes very annoying dropouts. The vid dropouts can be overlooked, but when the audio drops at a very important part, it's very frustrating.

I also get KOLR-DT ch 52 perfectly right now (~70mi away). They will move from ch 52 to ch 10, post analog. Time will tell if it also has impulse noise interference.

What antenna(s) are you using? If you're in Arkansas, then your topography is fairly similar to mine (western Pennsylvania). I've never been able to get a stable signal off any of the upper UHF channels, least of all at 70 miles. Also, are you at the top of a hill?

(ADDED AFTER EDIT) I was looking at the FCC database and your KOLR has a 2000 ft tower! I wish we had anything close to that around here. Then I'd actually have line of site on something.

arxaw

09-18-07, 03:34 PM

What antenna(s) are you using? If you're in Arkansas, then your topography is fairly similar to mine (western Pennsylvania). I've never been able to get a stable signal off any of the upper UHF channels, least of all at 70 miles. Also, are you at the top of a hill?

(ADDED AFTER EDIT) I was looking at the FCC database and your KOLR has a 2000 ft tower! I wish we had anything close to that around here. Then I'd actually have line of site on something.Yes, I'm on a hilltop @ 1405'. My antenna is also looking at trees in both directions.

IIRC, KOLR-DT's tower height, including the tower + the hill it's on is ~3000' above sea level. They share an dual antenna with KSFX-DT, and both are ~1000kW ERP. So, they are blasting the Ozarks with signal.

But I think height matters more than power with digital, because the PBS station's DT ch 23 power is only ~100kW ERP, but their tower is ~500' higher. And all 3 of these stations, plus (KYTV-DT 44) come in with consistent 100% signal strength readings. I believe KYTV-DT is also around 3500' above sea level. They all have a huge digital coverage area.

I'm using a ChannelMaster CM4228 antenna (http://www.warrenelectronics.com/antennas/4228.htm) + CM7777V/U preamp (http://www.warrenelectronics.com/antennas/7777.htm). I have the back reflector screen removed off of the 4228, to make it bi-directional. That allows me to pick up 2 markets in almost opposite directions, from 45 & 70mi away, without messing with the rotor. All full power channels from both markets are 100% signal strenth. Tuner I use most is the D* HR20-700 HD DVR. The antenna is split to that box (which splits the OTA signal to 2 tuners), plus split to 3 other TVs in the house.

http://i17.tinypic.com/2pqm83b.jpg

MeowMeow

09-19-07, 12:44 AM

Hmmm... my rig is the exact same rig, just with the reflector still intact. You look like you face a lot less foliage than I do (Pennsylvania doesn't mean Penn's Woods as a joke -- who knew?).

Over east we have a lot tighter bunching of broadcasters. Even with the back reflector on, I get tons of co-channel interference from points north and west of me.

For example, one of my two Fox affiliates transmits on Channel 29. There are two LP stations on the same channel, including on in direct line of sight of my Fox station. Then, on the backside, there is a 29 broadcasting out of Ohio.

Combine that with rough terrain and ... ugh.

arxaw

09-19-07, 08:29 AM

Hmmm... my rig is the exact same rig, just with the reflector still intact. You look like you face a lot less foliage than I do...Maybe I should post a picture of all the trees. The 4228 is looking directly at tons of them in both directions. Huge pines and hardwoods - mostly oaks.

We have co-channel interference here, too, from full & LP stations. We recently fought with a LP and got them to move off a co-channel they were on w/ a full power CBS digital station. Neither the LP nor the full power station knew they were both trying to use ch 18 until they and the FCC were notified by viewers.

There are two FOX full power stations within range of me on channel 27. One analog @ 5,000kW (3000' tower), and a digital @ 200kW (~2000' tower). Guess which one wins....

MeowMeow

09-19-07, 11:24 AM

I'm going to say the digital, just because it seems contrary. On the upside, a lot of these issue ought to be disappearing in a year and a half.

arxaw

09-19-07, 06:41 PM

Nope. Power & tower win out. Don't even get a blip out of the digital ch., even when the screen was on the 4228.

MeowMeow

09-19-07, 11:06 PM

Nope. Power & tower win out. Don't even get a blip out of the digital ch., even when the screen was on the 4228.

I think we're all curious to see what the disappearance of analog does for our signals. If I put my address into TVFool.com's signal checker, about 3/4 of the channels are listed as having either co-channel or adjacent channel interference.

Falcon_77

10-24-07, 11:33 AM

Has anyone crunched the data to see if any major MSA's are not going to have any full power VHF stations after 2009?

The LA area, at 4 full power stations, 7, 9, 11 & 13, seems to have more than most.

What is next on the FCC's agenda? The auction of the 52-69 spectrum?

foxeng

10-24-07, 01:32 PM

The 52-69 spectrum auction has been underway for several years.

goldrich

10-24-07, 01:53 PM

The 52-69 spectrum auction has been underway for several years.

Yes. As an example, I know that Qualcomm is already using channel 55 in Indy.

Steve

HIPAR

10-24-07, 06:24 PM

...

What is next on the FCC's agenda? The auction of the 52-69 spectrum?

If you want to bid you can check out the FCC auction pages.

For 700 MHz:

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_factsheet&id=73

Some of the to be freed from TV spectrum has already been sold. Qualcomm already bought Chanel 55 nation wide and has been cutting 'sweetheart' deals with the stations broadcasting there to move off early. WHYY (Wilmington DE) has sacrificed many DTV viewers with its Qualcomm deal.

The press makes a big deal about the billions to be made from the auction of the 'analog spectrum'. I guess that money will cover the cost of government for a few hours.

--- CHAS

Falcon_77

10-24-07, 11:28 PM

Well, this is quite an eye-opener. Thank you for the info. I didn't know that the TV spectrum had already been reduced in some areas.

I looked at the results of Auction 49 and Qualcomm has 5 of the 6 licenses for Channel 55. Noticeably absent is the Pacific EAG group (6) on that auction. What happened to that one, is it part of Auction 73? I don't see it on the list. We still have channel 55 for TV in SoCal.

What is Qualcomm using channel 55 for?

dr1394

10-25-07, 07:12 AM

Falcon_77

11-08-07, 11:20 AM

How long do "dismissed" applications remain in the FCC database? For that matter, how often is the database updated?

I am assuming that dismissed applications were rejected, but am unable to find a definition list confirming what the various status flags mean.

At this point it seems that I will have to check APP records to see exactly what they mean.

Thank you,

foxeng

11-08-07, 12:58 PM

When ever the FCC feels they need to purge the database. There seems to be no set schedule of when that is done. Some outdated stuff has remained for years in some cases.

HIPAR

11-14-07, 12:11 PM

It's about T minus 15 months and counting towards DTV H Hour.

Currently, there seems to be more news about mobile TV, IPTV and satellite MPEG4 than over-the-air broadcasting.

So what is the current state of the transition. Is new DTV equipment being delivered? Are the stations that need extensive new construction on schedule to meet the deadline? etc ..

--- CHAS

foxeng

11-22-07, 12:20 PM

foxeng

11-22-07, 12:22 PM

Consultant: Use TV Channel 6 for Radio

November 21, 2007

It's time to drop radio's protections for TV Channel 6 and re-purpose that spectrum to the FM band. So says engineering consultant John Mullaney.

In an FCC filing, Mullaney says adding 82 to 88 MHz to the bottom of the FM band would ease overcrowding; the time is also right for the agency to decide if TV Channel 5 should be reallocated to radio as well, he said.

"The assumptions that Channels 2–6 are technically equal to the remaining Channels 7–51 has proved not to be totally accurate," says Mullaney in the filing.

"We believe the problems associated with impulse noise and greater difficulty in compensating for signal cancellations are some of the major reasons why there are only 38 potential [TV] digital allotments under consideration while there are currently 302 analog full-service analog allotments."

Because only eight digital allotments are proposed for TV Channel 6, Mullaney believes, based upon this "extreme underutilization of TV 6, the commission could also consider a shared use of the channel but limit the sharing to just those full-service digital TV allotments currently under consideration."

Many of the recently filed NCE applications for radio allocations either ignored Channel 6 protection or curtailed their proposed power levels to protect those analog channels, he said.

The thousands of applications filed in the recent window, as well as more than 14,000 applications filed in the 2003 FM translator window, demonstrates pent-up-demand for FM spectrum, he argues.

One allocation for a TV channel could be used for up to 30 FM radio stations; such additions could go a long way towards easing short-spacing conditions on the FM band, he states.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0015/t.9859.html

Falcon_77

11-22-07, 02:45 PM

This makes sense to me, if we would have enough room remaining in the TV spectrum. Some markets may be constrained with only 7-51. I think we are throwing away too many UHF channels to be frank.

I know that ATSC handles impulse noise quite a bit better than DVB-T, but the difference only seems to be enough to utilize VHF-High.

With HD Radio (hopefully) gaining popularity in the next few years, perhaps this will be a bigger issue.

As for DTV, VHF-Lo has got to go.

foxeng

11-22-07, 04:49 PM

I am not saying Mullaney is wrong, it does make plenty of sense from a technical standpoint (in full discloser he has done work for stations I have worked for when I was working there so I have nothing against John, he is a good engineer), but remember where he is coming from. When the transition is complete not many TV stations will need broadcast services for a while and FM is pretty much topped out now with the LPFMs coming on the air filling in the holds. He stands to make a lot of money if this comes to pass. That is where his drive is coming from. Will the FCC take this seriously? Not until after the transition and then who knows how long after, if ever.

HIPAR

11-23-07, 12:01 AM

MeowMeow

11-23-07, 12:58 AM

Considering the terrible public awareness level for HDTV, I don't see HD Radio getting a giant push anytime soon.

Couple that with the fact that you're talking about more and smaller facilities with radio, and you're facing a lot of resistance just getting HD signals transmitting. How many station engineers are up to the challenge (consider that a lot of TV station engineers are having trouble)? How many stations are even willing to commit the money to HD radio (radio stations are notorious penny pinchers)?

The basic idea of using channel six isn't the worst. But, I don't know that the undertaking is going to yield a lot of benefit relative to the complications it will cause for TV on channel 6.

kb7oeb

11-23-07, 03:30 AM

I think HD Radio may be more known than OTA HD, I hear HD Radio ads all the time.

MeowMeow

11-23-07, 01:11 PM

I think HD Radio may be more known than OTA HD, I hear HD Radio ads all the time.

Ads promoting the basic concept (like the digital TV public service ads running) or ads selling HD radios?

I haven't heard either in my area (central/western PA). We only have a handful of HD radio stations operating right now, so I've made very little effort to buy equipment and such.

dline

11-23-07, 07:07 PM

I think HD Radio may be more known than OTA HD, I hear HD Radio ads all the time.One of our local stations has an ad on the front of city buses: "You won't believe it's AM."

Larry Kenney

11-23-07, 07:21 PM

It was nice to see the write up on Digital TV, HDTV and the end of analog in "Parade" magazine, the Sunday supplement in the San Francisco Chronicle this past weekend. It was well written... and correct. It gave the date for the change to full digital, mentioned how analog TVs would no longer work unless you had analog cable or satellite service or got one of the converter boxes that will be available. It even told how to get one come January.

I hope this and the new PSAs on TV are just the start of public information on the transistiion!

Larry
SF

dline

11-23-07, 07:25 PM

Ads promoting the basic concept (like the digital TV public service ads running) or ads selling HD radios?

I haven't heard either in my area (central/western PA). We only have a handful of HD radio stations operating right now, so I've made very little effort to buy equipment and such.The issue there is that HD Radio doesn't have the urgency of (H)DTV. The benefits of DT are immediately apparent: it looks better, it sounds better, and it's a more efficient way to use spectrum. Plus, there's a lot of pressure to get all those TV stations to get rid of the extra channel they're using during the transition.

HD Radio, on the other hand, transmits within a station's allotted channel, so the pressure to get rid of the existing service isn't quite as severe. (The flip side is that converting FM to digital could help clear up the crowding in the band. Plus, flutter-resistant reception would be nice.)

Also, as far as I know, the FCC has no deadline for getting rid of analog AM/FM radio. As far as I know, it's just the desire for better sounding radio that's driving this HD Radio thing.

MeowMeow

11-23-07, 07:29 PM

One of our local stations has an ad on the front of city buses: "You won't believe it's AM."

See? I live in a town that has one public bus, with no ads on it and it only runs from 8 am to 4 pm.

You live in the middle of somewhere. Me? Not so much.

kb7oeb

11-24-07, 12:09 AM

Ads promoting the basic concept (like the digital TV public service ads running) or ads selling HD radios?

No PSAs, there are ads from retailers like radio shack pushing radio sales and there are ads from the radios stations themselves promoting their HD2 channels.

The issue there is that HD Radio doesn't have the urgency of (H)DTV. The benefits of DT are immediately apparent: it looks better, it sounds better, and it's a more efficient way to use spectrum. Plus, there's a lot of pressure to get all those TV stations to get rid of the extra channel they're using during the transition.

Most people I talk to think HD comes from cable and satellite and are in disbelief that you can get HD OTA. There is no promotion of the HD OTA signal. I can only think of three times I've heard mention of OTA digital; when one local stations news went HD they mentioned Antennas, when a local station added a weather sub channel they added 5.2 to the on screen graphic but usually only audibly mention the web stream and when the MNTV station got Suns games in HD they said they could be received on 45.1 or cable 709.

Our big independent added HD news but only mentioned it available on DirecTV and Cable. The year prior they carried Diamond Backs games in HD but did not promote it at all because they were not on cable and they didn't do HD news until the day they were added to cable.

I don't think the the tv stations want people to pick them up OTA, I think they would rather people subscribe to pay tv and get carriage fees.

MeowMeow

11-24-07, 12:35 AM

Most people I talk to think HD comes from cable and satellite and are in disbelief that you can get HD OTA.

Most people I know are convinced that HD is just another round of unnecessary technology upgrades. HD uptakes requires sitting a person down and showing it to them done right.

I've heard every quip possible about OTA HD. Antenna's are outdated. HD isn't all that good looking. Too much effort. The old-fashioned "Huh? Too complex."

But, people are impressed when you sit them down and show them the finished product.

foxeng

11-24-07, 08:43 AM

Also, as far as I know, the FCC has no deadline for getting rid of analog AM/FM radio. As far as I know, it's just the desire for better sounding radio that's driving this HD Radio thing.

After talking with my old radio buddies still in the biz about this, actually their big fear is that the FCC WILL mandate a radio digital conversion after the TV digital conversion is completed. That is the real push for HD Radio by station owners. The fact that HD Radio is IBOC and not a separate channel like TV makes it much easier and much, much cheaper for installation and operations for radio to go ahead and install HD Radio now, even though there is no real audience for HD Radio yet. There are more digital TV tuners in the US than HD Radios at this point.

For about $75k average (in some instances cheaper, some more expensive), you can set up a complete HD Radio system from programming to antenna and transmitter mods verses the several million dollars and FCC permitting to install just a SD digital TV system. Unlike TV which has no real marketplace force, just legislative pressures to do digital TV; satellite radio along with the problems TV has had in converting to digital TV (technically as well as legislative), has convinced terrestrial radio to do something now and not wait and get caught with their pants down when they can't beat the 800 lb gorilla.

My guess is by 2020, analog terrestrial radio will be history as well.

Trip in VA

11-24-07, 02:19 PM

And then there are a few difficult cases such as the well known situation with WPVI in Philadelphia having no place to go except back to Channel 6. I guess the problem might be solved by not expanding FM radio in those cases but somehow that seems to be a makeshift solution.

--- CHAS

If WPVI wanted to get off of channel 6 badly enough, they could have. A consulting engineer staring at the maps long enough could have figured out a way for WPVI to get a nice UHF. (Move WTVE-DT back to channel 51, put WPVI-DT on channel 25)

And as for foxeng's comments, if that's true, that's very sad. Nothing I've seen of IBOC has proven to me that it's suitable to replace analog radio. The analog is strong and clear long before the digital starts to decode in my experience, even using an FM roof antenna. If they want to kill off radio entirely, going digital-only is a great way to do it.

- Trip

Thomas Desmond

11-24-07, 05:39 PM

My guess is by 2020, analog terrestrial radio will be history as well.

I'm less convinced of that. I think of the age of the various radios that I have around my house that see occasional use, and don't see broadcasters being able to shut down the analog component of their HD-radio signals for many years.

Consider it this way. Almost every clock radio and table radio sold today is analog only. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Whenever the day comes that all new radios support digital, it will still be 15 or 20 years before the old radios will mostly fall out of use. And what radio station is going to want to go digital only when that means that they lose the listener who wakes up to their station on an analog clock radio or listens on a little portable analog radio at work?

I suspect that 2030 is being optimistic for when radio can go digital only.

foxeng

11-24-07, 07:37 PM

I'm less convinced of that. I think of the age of the various radios that I have around my house that see occasional use, and don't see broadcasters being able to shut down the analog component of their HD-radio signals for many years.

Consider it this way. Almost every clock radio and table radio sold today is analog only. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Whenever the day comes that all new radios support digital, it will still be 15 or 20 years before the old radios will mostly fall out of use. And what radio station is going to want to go digital only when that means that they lose the listener who wakes up to their station on an analog clock radio or listens on a little portable analog radio at work?

I suspect that 2030 is being optimistic for when radio can go digital only.

Those same things were said in 1998 about TV sets.

Trip in VA

11-25-07, 10:53 AM

I'll put it like this, I have my HD Radio with me at UVA, in downtown Charlottesville. There are two stations broadcasting IBOC here, and I can get neither one with my antenna in any configuration I've tried. The analogs are completely listenable (WVTW has some slight static, WCNR is completely clear, and all the non-digital stations come in fine), but I've never gotten the IBOC to decode.

Is this what the radio stations want?

- Trip

dline

11-25-07, 05:44 PM

Those same things were said in 1998 about TV sets.Of course, in 1998 I think we were still talking about going all-DT by 2006.:rolleyes:

foxeng

11-25-07, 06:01 PM

Of course, in 1998 I think we were still talking about going all-DT by 2006.:rolleyes:

And EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE was saying it would take until at least 2015 before you could THINK about turning off analog. Well here we are. Remember, TV's cost 100,000 times more than most radios. It isn't the same thing.

kb7oeb

11-28-07, 01:28 AM

I saw IONs dtv psa today, it actually tells people they can get free digital and HD http://ionline.tv/dtv/

If you want a laugh you can become a DTV Deputy and print out a FCC approved certificate http://dtv.gov/dtvquiz.html

HIPAR

11-29-07, 05:45 PM

I just printed out my certificate. Hi Hi

--- CHAS :):)

PA_MainyYak

11-30-07, 03:32 PM

See? I live in a town that has one public bus, with no ads on it and it only runs from 8 am to 4 pm.

You live in the middle of somewhere. Me? Not so much.

At least you get the groundhog for excitement every year!

PA_MainyYak

11-30-07, 03:37 PM

No PSAs, there are ads from retailers like radio shack pushing radio sales and there are ads from the radios stations themselves promoting their HD2 channels.

Most people I talk to think HD comes from cable and satellite and are in disbelief that you can get HD OTA. There is no promotion of the HD OTA signal. I can only think of three times I've heard mention of OTA digital; when one local stations news went HD they mentioned Antennas, when a local station added a weather sub channel they added 5.2 to the on screen graphic but usually only audibly mention the web stream and when the MNTV station got Suns games in HD they said they could be received on 45.1 or cable 709.

Our big independent added HD news but only mentioned it available on DirecTV and Cable. The year prior they carried Diamond Backs games in HD but did not promote it at all because they were not on cable and they didn't do HD news until the day they were added to cable.

I don't think the the tv stations want people to pick them up OTA, I think they would rather people subscribe to pay tv and get carriage fees.

The TV stations are focused on the 80 to 90% of their viewers who do get their signal via either cable or a dish. I suspect many of the folks in the promotions departments of those stations don't realize some people do still use antennas.

PinkSplice

12-01-07, 08:16 PM

And EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE was saying it would take until at least 2015 before you could THINK about turning off analog. Well here we are. Remember, TV's cost 100,000 times more than most radios. It isn't the same thing.

FoxEng is quite correct about TV and radio not being the same; I got the hell out of radio thirty years ago, and it was the correct decision. Traffic, news and weather are all I listen for. TV may follow the same route. The writers strike may have the same effect on television that the PATCO strike (and de-regulation) on the quality of air travel.

And *I* just got DSL. $10/month. I can get everything I want over broadband now. The end is nigh. All that remains is the screaming, bitching and moaning.

MeowMeow

12-01-07, 11:50 PM

And *I* just got DSL. $10/month. I can get everything I want over broadband now. The end is nigh. All that remains is the screaming, bitching and moaning.

High speed internet in the US is a long way from being a feasible replacement for TV, especially for HDTV and live events.

Most of this is due to a lack of investment by the major players.

But, yes, at some point the TV powers that be are going to have to look upon the internet as just one more means of distribution, rather than a dangerous disease to be quarantined.

However, after watching RIAA engage in nothing short of racketeering, I'm not inclined to believe the major media even comprehend what their up against.

milehighmike

12-02-07, 01:52 AM

Posted by MeowMeow:
I'm not inclined to believe the major media even comprehend what their up against.

I think they do. And they will continue to try to stymie fair use to the point of attempting to make new technologies illegal or useless.

MeowMeow

12-02-07, 10:24 AM

I think they do. And they will continue to try to stymie fair use to the point of attempting to make new technologies illegal or useless.

And that is what I mean by they don't know what they're up against. They are up against the demands of the consumer. They are up against the market.

The market demands P2P and the wise move is to join it.

Thomas Desmond

12-02-07, 06:03 PM

And that is what I mean by they don't know what they're up against. They are up against the demands of the consumer. They are up against the market.

Mostly, what they're up against is their own paranoia and stupidity.

Think of it this way. How many of us would be willing to pay a subscription fee to receive non-copy protected downloads of, say, "Battlestar Galactical" the night after it airs? In high defininition, and without all the screen clutter and garbage that the Sci Fi Channel throws on the screen. And without the worry of getting a corrupted or poor quality copy, as can happen with unsanctioned downloads. And perhaps even offered in your choice of format (QuickTime, WMV, Divx, etc), to reflect the equipment that you'll be viewing your downloads on.

Further, imagine that you can go to the same site to get purchase (at reasonable prices) downloads of your favorite shows from a variety of different media providers, all aggregated in one place. And that once you have that download, you can watch it on your own PC, burn it onto a DVD for viewing on your TV, or whatever -- without having a file crippled and hampered by copy protection that makes it virtually useless.

Even better, imagine that this service is not restricted by location. So if I want to order the second season of "Torchwood" as it airs on the BBC, I'd have the option of doing so. An expatriate friend in Italy would be able to do the same thing with the American shows that he follows.

Anyone else think that there is the potential to make some money from offering this kind of service?

So far as I can tell, the technology exists to offer us this sort of thing today. What prevents it is that the big media companies are so in fear of piracy that they refuse to offer their content in a format that is actually useful to most viewers. And they're so wedded to existing business models that they're unwilling to offer the content on terms that would appeal to many customers -- consider the "legal" movie downloads that cost more than buying the same DVD at Best Buy, and have inferior quality.

What they refuse to recognize is that the peer to peer file transfers will exist whether they are willing to support that market or not. It's their choice as to whether they operate in that environment in a manner that allows them to capture a profit from it, or whether they choose to leave that to the pirates.

Thomas Desmond

12-02-07, 06:06 PM

As an aside, my previous post as well as the string of posts that led to it are certainly a case of thread drift.

However, I think that the whole issue of these alternate technologies for distributing video is one that is very relevant to the broadcast industry. For one thing, excess capacity on digital broadcast channels is one way in which digital content could be distributed to those who opt to buy it. Aside from that, while I think that Internet video could eventually cripple the cable/satellite TV business, I also suspect that the free and ubiquitous signals of free OTA TV stations virtually ensure that broadcasters can continue to have an important role in the distribution of TV programming, regardless of how the industry changes.

SnellKrell

12-02-07, 06:28 PM

Haven't we gotten off topic???

Table of Allotments/Channel Change is the topic!

MeowMeow

12-03-07, 02:09 AM

We're pretty far off-topic.

Of course, not a lot of on-topic news is forthcoming (although anyone who has anything the CW station in Pittsburgh is welcome to jump in).

dline

12-31-07, 08:18 PM

dline

01-01-08, 03:19 PM

Key transition dates from the FCC's New Year's Eve report and order:

February 18, 2008: All stations must file the new FCC Form 387 "detailing their current transition status, additional steps necessary for digital-only operation upon expiration of the February 17, 2009 transition deadline, and a timeline for making those steps. Stations must update the form as events warrant and by October 20, 2008 if they have not completed construction."

I'd expect you should be able to find your stations' forms online through an FCC CDBS search soon after February 18.

May 18, 2008: Date by which stations must construct their final facilities if they are NOT changing DT channels after 2-17-09 and have a construction permit.

August 18, 2008: Deadline for stations to construct their final facilities if they are NOT changing DT channels after 2-17-09, but do NOT have a construction permit for their final facilities.

Mid-January, 2009: Some stations which are changing DT channels are expected to reduce or eliminate analog early, using a rule which lets stations stop operating for up to 30 days without FCC approval as long as they notify the commission and the public.

February 17, 2009:

- Construction deadline for stations demonstrating a "unique technical challenge, such as the need to reposition a side-mounted antenna."

- Deadline for stations to construct their final facilities if they WILL be changing DT channels, or if their final DT channel is their analog.

- All analog stations must be off air and all out-of-core channels must be vacated by 11:59 p.m.

sebenste

01-01-08, 04:19 PM

Today the FCC announced new rules which they hope will further guide this transition to completion. Among other things, it appears stations will have to file a new form (Form 387) to document their progress and timeline for getting their analogs off the air on 2-17-09.

I have a life and intend to use it tonight so that's all I'll post. But here's a link for when you get home from whatever party you're at:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-228A1.pdf

Be safe tonight!

Thanks for posting that. Well, well! Looks like stations have the ability to sign off for a month to get antennas and transmitters installed, or even to sign off a little early. Wonder what WBBM, WLS, WGBO and WXFT will do in Chicago. We'll find out in about a year, if not sooner...

Desert Hawk

01-02-08, 07:56 PM

dline

01-02-08, 09:37 PM

Why are stations required to make the switch at 11:59 pm? That is right in the middle of The Tonight Show on NBC and The Late Show on CBS. Let's use as an example an NBC affiliate that is making it's permanent digital home on it's current analog channel. Are they actually expected to broadcast the first half of Leno on their old analog and digital channels, quickly shut off the old signals and fire up the new digital signal on the old analog channel during the midnight station break, and then broadcast the second half of the show in digital on the old analog channel number? It would make much more sense to allow stations to keep using the current signals until 3am. That way an NBC affiliate could broadcast all the late night shows on the old signals until Poker After Dark ends at 3am, and then shut down the old signals. Then they would have 2 hours to get the new digital signal on the air with a test pattern, before the early early morning news at 5am.I believe it's "by" 11:59pm, not necessarily "at."

My guess is that if a station has to move it'll probably move early, perhaps by 3am on the morning of 2-17-09 if not earlier. This is going to vary by station and we'll hopefully know more by this February when stations have to file that new form.

It appears the FCC may be willing to be somewhat flexible on everything except the need to be "in the core" (that is, no more TV or DT on channels 52 and above) and in digital by the end of 2-17-09. But as far as the date is concerned, they can't budge because Congress set it.

MeowMeow

01-02-08, 09:37 PM

Why are stations required to make the switch at 11:59 pm?

My understanding is that a station that is up to FCC regs and is already in full compliance can shutdown its analog transmitter anytime it wants between now and Feb 2009.

They're not actually under any obligation to wait until 2009, as long as all their permits and licenses are up-to-date, and they've proven a decent enough reproduction of their old analog coverage area.

The station engineer for one of our local Fox affiliates said in the Johnstown PA forum a while back that they actually plan to switch their digital signal over to their legacy analog VHF channel sometime this summer or fall.

Also, the document indicates the FCC plans to encourage the use of some 30 day window where the station can be out of operation by simply notifying the FCC, so that stations that are having big problems, or that have to convert to a different channel, can do so without facing any repercussions.

If I'm wrong on any of that, please correct me. I know there are folks more versed in this stuff than me.

Whatever the case, the midnight last day thing is an absolute deadline. The FCC actually addressed this in the PDF, basically saying they weren't humoring anyone past that date except in cases of serious construction issues, acts of God, etc.

MeowMeow

01-02-08, 09:43 PM

they can't budge because Congress set it.

They also can't budge because this is already approaching the point of ridiculousness. We've screwed around long enough, and the market penetration for DTV is in place.

There is no excuse for any full power station giving grief after Feb 2009, except for laziness and/or cheapness.

dline

01-02-08, 10:02 PM

Thanks for posting that. Well, well! Looks like stations have the ability to sign off for a month to get antennas and transmitters installed, or even to sign off a little early. Wonder what WBBM, WLS, WGBO and WXFT will do in Chicago. We'll find out in about a year, if not sooner...What happens with WBBM should be interesting since (IIRC) it's moving to a channel currently occupied by WTTW analog. There's going to have to be some back-and-forth going on. Compared to that, WLS' move back to channel 7 should be a cakewalk, depending on what kind of transmitter they currently have for channel 7. Some newer transmitters can be converted from analog to digital fairly easily.

Des Moines should be interesting, too. Only KDSM's DT 16 (Fox) is in its final home. But channels 5, 8, 11 and 13 (ABC/CBS/PBS/NBC) are moving back to their analogs; channels 23 (CW) and 39 (Ion) don't have companion DTs and will have to "flash-cut" to digital; and digital-only channel 56 (MyNetwork with a CW HD subchannel) is moving to a channel occupied by the DT of channel 8. (Whew!)

foxeng

01-02-08, 10:13 PM

What happens with WBBM should be interesting since (IIRC) it's moving to a channel currently occupied by WTTW analog. There's going to have to be some back-and-forth going on.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't CBS paying for WTTW's new transmitter facility? If so, their will be no problem if any on air testing is needed.

Compared to that, WLS' move back to channel 7 should be a cakewalk, depending on what kind of transmitter they currently have for channel 7. Some newer transmitters can be converted from analog to digital fairly easily.

That isn't going to be a problem either. I am very sure WLS has mulitple transmitters and antennas (main and backups). They either convert the main to digital and run on the back up in analog until they switch or they convert a back up to digital and at Feb 17, 2009, switch the back up on and then convert the main to digital. Again no sweat.

Des Moines should be interesting, too. Only KDSM's DT 16 (Fox) is in its final home. But channels 5, 8, 11 and 13 (ABC/CBS/PBS/NBC) are moving back to their analogs; channels 23 (CW) and 39 (Ion) don't have companion DTs and will have to "flash-cut" to digital; and digital-only channel 56 (MyNetwork with a CW HD subchannel) is moving to a channel occupied by the DT of channel 8. (Whew!)

Now that one will be interesting.

foxeng

01-02-08, 10:33 PM

Why are stations required to make the switch at 11:59 pm?

Actually the Report and Order states that stations must be clear of analog transmission by 11:59pm Feb 17, 2009, but can convert beginning as soon as they have completed construction of their post transition facilities and notifiy the FCC within 30 days of the planned switch, file the paperwork asking permission to cease analog transmission, as long as the switch will not cause any additional interference to existing analog or digital stations at the time of the change.

That is right in the middle of The Tonight Show on NBC and The Late Show on CBS. Let's use as an example an NBC affiliate that is making it's permanent digital home on it's current analog channel. Are they actually expected to broadcast the first half of Leno on their old analog and digital channels, quickly shut off the old signals and fire up the new digital signal on the old analog channel during the midnight station break, and then broadcast the second half of the show in digital on the old analog channel number?

If the station wants to, yes but the FCC has stated in the Report and Order that ALL stations HAVE to announce ON AIR in ADVANCE their intentions to cease analog transmissions at X time and their digital signal will be on channel Y after that time. The FCC states the time line this has to take place.

It would make much more sense to allow stations to keep using the current signals until 3am. That way an NBC affiliate could broadcast all the late night shows on the old signals until Poker After Dark ends at 3am, and then shut down the old signals. Then they would have 2 hours to get the new digital signal on the air with a test pattern, before the early early morning news at 5am.

The Report and Order is VERY clear that ALL FULL POWER analog transmissions MUST CEASE NO LATER THAN 11:59pm Feb 17, 2009, unless they have express FCC permission, IN WRITING, and the FCC says it will not be issuing any such waivers unless the situation is an EXTREME condition and they can't foresee such a condition. The Report and Order specifies that ANY station NOT making the 11:59pm deadline is just off the air until they can get the digital signal on. If a station is not going to make the 11:59pm deadline, they have to notify the FCC AND announce on air they will not make the Feb 17, 2009 date and will be off air. They don't care what the programming is at 11:59 pm or the situation. The FCC has left NO stone unturned on this one.

At 12:00 MID Feb 18, 2009, any full power analog signal still on the air without express FCC authorization is operating without a license and is in violation of FCC rules as an unauthorized station and is liable for any sanctions. Now, if a station wishes to cease analog operations between 12:00 Mid and 5:00 AM Feb 17, 2009, they have no problem with that either.

I have read all 156 pages of the Report and Order. They have addressed every contingency and every type of situation, including naming 6 stations having NOT made enough progress in putting a digital signal on the air and those stations have now lost their analog coverage area protection in digital and as stated in the Report and Order, those stations may never it be able to get it back either. The FCC is playing for keeps.

goldrich

01-02-08, 10:37 PM

What happens with WBBM should be interesting since (IIRC) it's moving to a channel currently occupied by WTTW analog.

WBBM-DT was going to move to WTTW's analog channel 11, but WBBM-DT made some other arrangements and is now scheduled to move to channel 12, as discussed at the Chicago OTA site. Here's a sample.....
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=9948641&postcount=5

Steve

sebenste

01-03-08, 12:33 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't CBS paying for WTTW's new transmitter facility? If so, their will be no problem if any on air testing is needed.

That isn't going to be a problem either. I am very sure WLS has mulitple transmitters and antennas (main and backups). They either convert the main to digital and run on the back up in analog until they switch or they convert a back up to digital and at Feb 17, 2009, switch the back up on and then convert the main to digital. Again no sweat.

I wouldn't say no sweat, but you are right. The backup tranny on the Hancock center is already being converted over, and will be testing this year late at night at least once in cooperation with other stations; the CE says he'll let people know when this happens.

coyoteaz

01-03-08, 02:26 AM

I wouldn't say no sweat, but you are right. The backup tranny on the Hancock center is already being converted over, and will be testing this year late at night at least once in cooperation with other stations; the CE says he'll let people know when this happens.

Best out-of-context statement ever! :eek::D:p

Seriously though, it should be interesting to see how stations work together when one station's new digital allocation is currently used by another's analog or digital, especially in congested areas such as the Northeast and the Chicago area. Phoenix has things relatively easy, with 3 stations going back to their current analog high VHF allocation, 4 going back to their current analog UHF allocation, and 5 keeping their current digital UHF allocation.

dline

01-03-08, 03:36 AM

WBBM-DT was going to move to WTTW's analog channel 11, but WBBM-DT made some other arrangements and is now scheduled to move to channel 12, as discussed at the Chicago OTA site. Here's a sample.....
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=9948641&postcount=5

SteveThanks for the info ... As long as it's not going back to 2!:D

(We have an analog 2/DT 51 in our market, but they're staying on 51.)

kb7oeb

01-03-08, 03:48 AM

In Phoenix 3 and 5 are analog and are staying on UHF for digital. Is there any value left in those transmitters? Say hypothetically someone wants to put a digital signal up on channel 5, would anything from the old analog channel 5 transmitter be useful?

coyoteaz

01-03-08, 04:06 AM

Just like on the receiving end, the transmitting antenna should work fine with a digital signal; the exciter would need to be swapped out for a digital one. There has been talk that some new LD stations will come on the air using the old low VHF equipment, but this location is unfriendly to DTV. Channels 2 and 3 have far too much noise in the average urban environment for reliable reception of a full-power station as we can see from WBBM and KVBC. This problem only gets worse at low power since there often won't be enough there to push the SNR to an acceptable level. Also, the size of antenna needed to receive these channels is far larger than what one needs for high VHF: the difference in ideal length for a dipole antenna (rabbit ears) jumps from 32" on channel 7 all the way to 72" on channel 6, and hits 102" for channel 2 (link (http://kyes.info/antenna/rabbitear.html)).

chris_h2

01-03-08, 12:04 PM

I have read all 156 pages of the Report and Order. They have addressed every contingency and every type of situation, including naming 6 stations having NOT made enough progress in putting a digital signal on the air and those stations have now lost their analog coverage area protection in digital and as stated in the Report and Order, those stations may never it be able to get it back either. The FCC is playing for keeps.

Wow. Congrats on reading the whole thing. I'm duly impressed.

I am curious about the 6 stations that have lost their coverage area protection. Any chance you could point to the page where these are listed for those of us too lazy (er, um, busy) to find it? Thanks in advance.

HIPAR

01-03-08, 01:46 PM

With this excitement amongst all of us interested in this matter, one would think the 'date of infamy' will occur this year rather than next. I guess the FCC document has instilled us with sense of its finality.

--- CHAS

dline

01-03-08, 03:05 PM

I am curious about the 6 stations that have lost their coverage area protection. Any chance you could point to the page where these are listed for those of us too lazy (er, um, busy) to find it? Thanks in advance.It looks like they were covered in a previous order (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-90A1.pdf) last May. From that order, it appears there may actually be seven:

KAME-DT, Reno, NV: "The station waited to file its modification application but when it did so the freeze had been imposed and its application was returned. The station does not explain why it was unable to file its modification application earlier or revise its modification application to comply with the freeze (i.e., reduction in power or height)."

KBDI-DT, Broomfield, CO: "...it is continuing to pursue a Negotiated Channel Election Arrangement with another station to change its post-transition DTV channel to 13. However, the station received a [tentative designation] on DTV channel 38 and does not adequately explain why it was unable to complete construction of its certified DTV facilities (the station is operating a low-power STA [Special Temporary Authority] facility). The station claims that it would be a “large financial burden” to have to complete construction of these facilities only to later be permitted to change its DTV channel to 13. However, the station did not submit a showing claiming financial hardship."

KUAM-DT, Agana, Guam: "During the channel election process, the station apparently abandoned its plans [to try to move its DT from channel 2 to channel 10] and elected to return to its analog channel 8. That proposal was accepted by the Commission. In the interim, the station has failed to make any progress on completion of its DTV facilities on channel 2. The station’s only justification is that it will seek Commission approval to flash
cut to channel 8 at the end of the transition, a proposal that was never filed."

WCOV-DT, Montgomery, AL: "The station attempted to claim financial hardship as its reason for not completing its DTV construction, but its showing was not sufficient. Specifically, the station did not provide a detailed statement explaining why its financial condition precludes it from making the expenditures necessary to complete its DTV construction ..."

WDHS-DT, Iron Mountain, MI and WDTV-DT, Weston, WV: "The licensee ... vaguely claims that it cannot install its DTV equipment on its existing towers and is exploring other options for the siting of its permanent DTV facilities."

WTXX-DT, Waterbury, CT: "It claims that it cannot file its application to modify its DTV construction permits to specify its STA facilities because of the Commission’s freeze on the filing of DTV applications. In reality, the station cannot file an application to modify to its STA facility because this move would result in the station causing impermissible interference to another station. It is within the station’s control to either identify a new transmitter site location or submit an application to modify its STA facility to comply with the Commission’s policies and rules."

chris_h2

01-03-08, 04:39 PM

afiggatt

01-03-08, 05:02 PM

I am still in the process of reading the earlier posts in this thread. It would be helpful to me for someone to define:
MUF
STA
Also, does anyone know why there is no channel 37 in use (I see this in several posts).
I think in this context, MUF stands for Most Usable Frequency. STA = Special Temporary Authority.

Channel 37 is a reserved frequency band for radio astronomy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_37.

I have skimmed the FCC document. Quite a lot of interesting material in it which I imagine the station engineers, management, lawyers, and consultants around the US are carefully studying to see how it effects their station.

There is a entire paragraph (#58) on WTVA-DT 8, Tupelo, Mississippi, an NBC affiliate which takes the station to the woodshed. They "will remain admonished and on a remedial program with respect to the construction of its post-transition facility". Remedial program? Is this like getting sent off to a detention class? Glad it is not my NBC affiliate as it has no digital signal at all.

foxeng

01-03-08, 05:26 PM

MUF stands for Most Usable Frequency

MUF = Maximum Usable Frequency. The highest frequency you can use for a certain distance.

I have skimmed the FCC document. Quite a lot of interesting material in it which I imagine the station engineers, management, lawyers, and consultants around the US are carefully studying to see how it effects their station.

That is why I read all 156 pages and am/will continue to reference it for a while I suspect! :)

There is a entire paragraph (#58) on WTVA-DT 8, Tupelo, Mississippi, an NBC affiliate which takes the station to the woodshed. They "will remain admonished and on a remedial program with respect to the construction of its post-transition facility". Remedial program? Is this like getting sent off to a detention class? Glad it is not my NBC affiliate as it has no digital signal at all.

In this context, the FCC means the station has to report their progress every 30 days and the FCC then evaluates if they have done enough and if not, the FCC can place sanctions or revocate the authorization. It is NOT something a station wants to be on. When license renewal comes around things like this weigh in on the outcome if a station has been a "license holder in good faith." If the FCC decides not, the license isn't renewed and the station goes out of business. It is serious stuff.

sebenste

01-03-08, 05:29 PM

It looks like they were covered in a previous order (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-90A1.pdf) last May. From that order, it appears there may actually be seven:

KUAM-DT, Agana, Guam: "During the channel election process, the station apparently abandoned its plans [to try to move its DT from channel 2 to channel 10] and elected to return to its analog channel 8. That proposal was accepted by the Commission. In the interim, the station has failed to make any progress on completion of its DTV facilities on channel 2. The station’s only justification is that it will seek Commission approval to flash
cut to channel 8 at the end of the transition, a proposal that was never filed."

"Who cares?", might be their attitude. Oh, they lose their protection rights. Oooh, out in an island in the middle of the Pacific. That'll teach 'em! :D

WDHS-DT, Iron Mountain, MI and WDTV-DT, Weston, WV: "The licensee ... vaguely claims that it cannot install its DTV equipment on its existing towers and is exploring other options for the siting of its permanent DTV facilities."

I can buy that and financial hardship. They should go lower power
until they have the funds to go to full. But they DO need to tell the FCC
what they plan on doing.

WTXX-DT, Waterbury, CT: "It claims that it cannot file its application to modify its DTV construction permits to specify its STA facilities because of the Commission’s freeze on the filing of DTV applications. In reality, the station cannot file an application to modify to its STA facility because this move would result in the station causing impermissible interference to another station. It is within the station’s control to either identify a new transmitter site location or submit an application to modify its STA facility to comply with the Commission’s policies and rules."

Yep. Welcome to the crowded northeast...

chris_h2

01-03-08, 06:11 PM

Thanks for the definitions guys.

How about "CP." What does that stand for in the context of this thread. TIA.

SnellKrell

01-03-08, 06:17 PM

Construction Permit

foxeng

01-03-08, 10:15 PM

"Who cares?", might be their attitude. Oh, they lose their protection rights. Oooh, out in an island in the middle of the Pacific. That'll teach 'em! :D

They should care. The value of the station has dropped because of the loss of coverage area. Whatever their digital coverage area is TODAY, is all they will have on Feb 18, 2009. If the station has NO digital signal on the air today (which I think IS the case for the Guam station, need to double check that to be sure), on Feb 18, 2009, they are out of business. And that word from the Report and Order.

wb8tgy

01-04-08, 01:30 PM

From what I have read, WDHS (analog) in Iron Mountain, MI is not even on the air most of the time.

sebenste

01-05-08, 01:44 AM

They should care. The value of the station has dropped because of the loss of coverage area. Whatever their digital coverage area is TODAY, is all they will have on Feb 18, 2009. If the station has NO digital signal on the air today (which I think IS the case for the Guam station, need to double check that to be sure), on Feb 18, 2009, they are out of business. And that word from the Report and Order.

Ooh! Um, yeah, they should! :eek: I thought they had at least an STA going.

milehighmike

01-05-08, 01:38 PM

I would like an opinion from one (or as many as would like to address this) of you experts.

KPXC is an ION affiliate in Denver. It has a digital STA but has never constructed any facilities or been on the air. It also has a construction permit for permanent digital facilities. I was surprised to not see this station specifically mentioned in the Third Periodic Review dated 12-31-07.

Since this station has no digital coverage at this time, are they out of business on 2-17-09? Also, if they could land as a subchannel on some other station's transmitting facilities, what effect would that have on future licensing for permanent digital facilities?

foxeng

01-05-08, 02:14 PM

Trip in VA

01-05-08, 11:05 PM

milehighmike

01-06-08, 01:13 AM

Posted by Trip in VA:
Was KPXC at all involved in the Lookout Mountain (S)CARE thing? Because that caused a lot of trouble for broadcasters up there.
No, KPXC is not part of the Lookout Mountain sCARE thing. They claim they have some legal problems in some of their filings with the FCC. They requested a waiver of the application freeze in January 2007, claiming they have found a new location for their tower but with a corresponding change in coverage area. That request is shown as "accepted for filing" in the FCC database. I can't find any record of it being approved. That's why I thought they might be SOL.

foxeng

01-06-08, 08:52 AM

Posted by Trip in VA:

No, KPXC is not part of the Lookout Mountain sCARE thing. They claim they have some legal problems in some of their filings with the FCC. They requested a waiver of the application freeze in January 2007, claiming they have found a new location for their tower but with a corresponding change in coverage area. That request is shown as "accepted for filing" in the FCC database. I can't find any record of it being approved. That's why I thought they might be SOL.

Anytime a station timely files something, it stops the clock until it is adjudicated. If KPXC filed a CP mod and the FCC hasn't decided, then they are covered from any other action from the FCC until that is decided.

Trip in VA

01-10-08, 12:02 PM

For any users with DeLorme TopoUSA (I'd imagine it'll work with Street Atlas too), I made this handy map with all the digital stations on it.

(I'm also working on a cell tower map and an FM station map, heh)

It's not 100% accurate; I've fudged some tower sites to put fewer dots on the map (for instance, not every station on Mount Wilson comes from one tower, but they're all on the same mountain, so it's really close).

The map does not include analogs, LPTVs, or Class A stations. The scheme goes like this:

CALLS (Ch.#/PSIP#)

So, for instance, in my market, WDBJ-DT is going to be on channel 18, but map to 7-1.

WDBJ (18/7)

But WSET-DT is going to return to its analog channel, 13, and map accordingly, and thus doesn't need its PSIP indicated separately:

WSET (13)

I do hope it's helpful or at least amusing. I have another one that's horribly outdated (probably 2-3 years out of date) and covered in all kinds of random LPTVs and unused towers here and there, and so this is me starting over. I referred to my old one a lot, and once I decide to put in selected LP/CA stations and note some abandoned analog towers that I like having, I'll delete my old map.

Anyway, enjoy!

http://data.quelorant.com/DTVFinal.an1

- Trip

PS: If you catch any inaccuracies, please please please let me know. =) Thanks.

jackbnimble404

01-10-08, 10:21 PM

Well, in my market there's a channel 2 which is doing digital on channel 51. They have (thankfully!!!!!!!) chosen to stay on 51 after the transition.

I seriously doubt they're ever going to want to start calling themselves "KGAN - CBS 51" when they've been known as 2 for more than a half century.

Digging up an old topic... Seems like some existing UHF Channels might like to re-brand with lower #'s. Major networks on analog UHF channels seem to suffer from a stigma being on UHF. In markets with VHF & UHF major affilates are the any that the UHF network affliates can compete in the news ratings or overall ratings? I think it might level the playing field for stations to have the option to snag a channel # 2 - 13 that is not currently used by a full-power analog station.

I.E. In Atlanta our CBS station is on analog 46. They've updated their look many times, but still lag far behind the VHF ABC, FOX, and NBC ratings. Maybe the FCC should amend the rule to allow stations to officially be able to id themselves by the ch. # their current analog signal is on most cable systems (except when that ch # is the OTA analog # of an existing station). I.E. CBS 46 could be come CBS 9, CW 69 could become CW 10, My 36, could become My 13.

OTA/Satellite users would automatically pick up the new id.

It would be optional as some may not want to spend the $ to rebrand themselves.

I know some do this or something similar already - NBC 7/39 in San Diego, and several of the stations in Fort Meyers and Sarasota, FL.

Seems the incumbent stations and not new ones should have first dibs on these ch #s. I would be a shame for some Low Power shopping channel to snag a prime # assignment.

Larry Kenney

01-11-08, 04:19 AM

foxeng

01-11-08, 08:01 AM

Maybe the FCC should amend the rule to allow stations to officially be able to id themselves by the ch. # their current analog signal is on most cable systems (except when that ch # is the OTA analog # of an existing station). I.E. CBS 46 could be come CBS 9, CW 69 could become CW 10, My 36, could become My 13.

The current FCC rules require stations to identify as their analog channel number, even after the transition. This is to keep public confusion to a minimum. So a station that was on channel 2 as an analog and then stays on 51 digital, will still be known as channel 2. If a new station (not on pre-transition) comes up on channel 2, they CAN'T call themselves channel 2 but has pick a channel number not in use in the area to be known as. Cable channels aren't in the legal ID mix but some UHF stations are known by their cable channel number, if they can get all of the cablecos to put them on the same channel. WCNC Charlotte is on 36 but calls itself 6News because they are on cable channel 6 in the area.

Trip in VA

01-11-08, 11:25 AM

That's a great collection of information, Trip, but your list is very difficult to read without the appropriate map software. I'm not sure what I need to use to read it clearly. I get lots of extraneous characters in it. However, I did find the San Francisco listings for Sutro Tower, Mt. San Bruno and the peaks above Fremont.

There's only one correction to note... along with a short story.

KCSM (43/60) in your list should be just KCSM (43). They turned off their channel 60 analog transmitter atop Mt. San Bruno a few years ago and made arrangements for the local cable systems, DirecTV and Dish to receive their digital signal on channel 43. Channel 43 transmits from Sutro Tower. They then put a very low powered channel 60 transmitter on the air from the college campus that barely covers San Mateo, the city of license. (CSM = College of San Mateo) Their PSIP info is shown as 43.1, 43.2 and 43.3. They dropped all references to channel 60.

The former channel 60 tower on Mt. San Bruno is now the new location of KNTV (12/11).

Larry
SF

Yes, it requires DeLorme TopoUSA to view (I made it with 5.0, but I imagine should work with newer versions--6.0 and 7.0--as well as with StreetAtlasUSA).

But thanks for the note on KCSM. I wasn't sure if they still mapped to channel 60 or not, so I erred on the side of caution.

If there was another mapping solution that did all of that without an internet connection (sorry Google Earth) and was free, I'd switch and use it instead, especially if it was open source and ran in Linux. But since I've yet to find anything like that, I run this program inside a virtual machine and do my mapping that way.

And as far as the PSIP number discussion, that would create a large amount of problems for people who receive stations from multiple markets. Could you imagine the confusion of people in Bridgeport CT, who would have, for instance:

9-1 MyNet WWOR New York
9-1 MyNet WCTX New Haven

See what I mean? This is why stations have to stick with their analog channel numbers.

- Trip

Desert Hawk

01-11-08, 07:07 PM

Trip in VA

01-11-08, 10:14 PM

Here in Bakersfield our local ABC station, KERO, broadcasts in analog on channel 23 and digital on RF channel 10 virtual channel 23-1. They have said that post transition, they want to rebrand themselves as ABC10 and map to channel 10-1. They are going to physically remain on channel 10. Is there any chance they will be allowed to do this, or will they still be virtual channel 23-1 200 years from now, long after physical channel 23 has gone dark? I think they should be allowed to map to their actual RF channel of they choose.

As far as I know, the FCC has said they MUST map to their analog channel. That's what the PSIP standard says in it, and the FCC has adopted the PSIP standard as is.

I wonder if the FCC will change their tune after the transition, but for the forseeable future, they are 23-1.

- Trip

Larry Kenney

01-12-08, 04:20 AM

The current FCC rules require stations to identify as their analog channel number, even after the transition. This is to keep public confusion to a minimum. (snip)

I can see where this is supposed to work, but we have a situation here in the San Francisco Bay Area where it could get really confusing. Take a look at what we've got coming up:

KTVU is now on analog 2, digital 56, and will be moving to digital 44.
KBCW is now on analog 44, digital 45, and will be staying on 45.
After the transition KBCW will be iding as 44, while KTVU will be on 44 iding as 2.

KRON is on analog 4, digital 57, and will be moving to digital 38.
KCNS is now on analog 38, digital 39, and will be staying on 39.
After the transition KCNS will be iding at 38, while KRON will be on 38 iding as 4.

KDTV is now on analog 14, digital 51. They're staying on 51.
KTNC is now on analog 42, digital 63, and will be moving to channel 14.
KDTV will be iding as 14, while KTNC on 14 will be iding as 42.

KMTP is now on analog 32, digital 33. They're staying on 33.
KFTY is now on analog 50, digital 54. They're moving to 32.
KMTP will be iding as 32, while KFTY on 32 will be iding at 50.

Sounds like the old "Who's on first?" I think this will be a lot more confusing then letting the stations use their actual channel number. Hopefully, the FCC will change their tune after the transition, so that stations can ID as they wish.

Larry
SF

MeowMeow

01-12-08, 04:31 AM

I can see where this is supposed to work, but we have a situation here in the San Francisco Bay Area where it could get really confusing. Take a look at what we've got coming up:

But, this is minding you that any half decent, half modern tuner will handle all the virtualization of the channels for you.

foxeng

01-12-08, 07:30 AM

I can see where this is supposed to work, but we have a situation here in the San Francisco Bay Area where it could get really confusing. Take a look at what we've got coming up:

KTVU is now on analog 2, digital 56, and will be moving to digital 44.
KBCW is now on analog 44, digital 45, and will be staying on 45.
After the transition KBCW will be iding as 44, while KTVU will be on 44 iding as 2.

KRON is on analog 4, digital 57, and will be moving to digital 38.
KCNS is now on analog 38, digital 39, and will be staying on 39.
After the transition KCNS will be iding at 38, while KRON will be on 38 iding as 4.

KDTV is now on analog 14, digital 51. They're staying on 51.
KTNC is now on analog 42, digital 63, and will be moving to channel 14.
KDTV will be iding as 14, while KTNC on 14 will be iding as 42.

KMTP is now on analog 32, digital 33. They're staying on 33.
KFTY is now on analog 50, digital 54. They're moving to 32.
KMTP will be iding as 32, while KFTY on 32 will be iding at 50.

Sounds like the old "Who's on first?" I think this will be a lot more confusing then letting the stations use their actual channel number. Hopefully, the FCC will change their tune after the transition, so that stations can ID as they wish.

Larry
SF

That is why every digital tuner, STB or TV has a scan function and the FCC is requiring stations to use PSIP. If the stations are doing what they are suppose to, the public will hardly even notice after a scan. And remember, in most markets, the majority of viewers are cable or sat and so this will not even be an issue. The FCC has no intentions of changing this either. In the Second DTV Review, the comments on this very issue were taken and this was the conscience of those commenting as the best way to handle this.

This issue is a solution looking for a problem.

afiggatt

01-12-08, 10:51 AM

That is why every digital tuner, STB or TV has a scan function and the FCC is requiring stations to use PSIP. If the stations are doing what they are suppose to, the public will hardly even notice after a scan. And remember, in most markets, the majority of viewers are cable or sat and so this will not even be an issue. The FCC has no intentions of changing this either. In the Second DTV Review, the comments on this very issue were taken and this was the conscience of those commenting as the best way to handle this.

This issue is a solution looking for a problem.
No, in some situations this will be a problem. You get 1 station which maps to channel 38, but the scan does not pick up the station that is actually on channel 38. So you now want to find the signal strength for the station that physically is on 38 to see is there is weak signal for which you need to tweak the antenna aim. How do you tell the ATSC tuner that you want to tune to physical channel 38 (or 38.1) and not to the station that is mapped to 38? BTW, all of the ATSC tuners I have used, do not tell you the actual broadcast channel of the station which is a serious design oversight, IMO.

The only to do this, I think, would be to delete the station that is mapped to 38 and then manually tune to 38 (or 38.1) and see what the signal strength meter says. This should work with the two Samsung tuners I use (T451 and H260F), not sure about the Sony HD-DVR. But how is a member of the public supposed to figure out how to get around the channel mapping when the ATSC tuners pretend that the channel mapping is not going on in the first place?

foxeng

01-12-08, 12:28 PM

No, in some situations this will be a problem. You get 1 station which maps to channel 38, but the scan does not pick up the station that is actually on channel 38. So you now want to find the signal strength for the station that physically is on 38 to see is there is weak signal for which you need to tweak the antenna aim. How do you tell the ATSC tuner that you want to tune to physical channel 38 (or 38.1) and not to the station that is mapped to 38? BTW, all of the ATSC tuners I have used, do not tell you the actual broadcast channel of the station which is a serious design oversight, IMO.

The only to do this, I think, would be to delete the station that is mapped to 38 and then manually tune to 38 (or 38.1) and see what the signal strength meter says. This should work with the two Samsung tuners I use (T451 and H260F), not sure about the Sony HD-DVR. But how is a member of the public supposed to figure out how to get around the channel mapping when the ATSC tuners pretend that the channel mapping is not going on in the first place?

As I said in my post, the public will hardly notice and can deal with this. You assume that only blue hairs will have STB's. I can tell you that is CLEARLY not the case. In the last 2 weeks since it was announced the coupons were available the calls I have fielded and answered on line have been with people of all ages who CHOOSE to watch OTA and not pay for cable or sat and they DO have some idea of what is coming. That is not to say that I haven't heard from older viewers, but most of the ones who have called do have children who are helping them so again I don't see this as major stumbling block. My experience so far doesn't reflect your opinion of the situation, much to my relief.

Trip in VA

01-12-08, 12:36 PM

No, in some situations this will be a problem. You get 1 station which maps to channel 38, but the scan does not pick up the station that is actually on channel 38. So you now want to find the signal strength for the station that physically is on 38 to see is there is weak signal for which you need to tweak the antenna aim. How do you tell the ATSC tuner that you want to tune to physical channel 38 (or 38.1) and not to the station that is mapped to 38? BTW, all of the ATSC tuners I have used, do not tell you the actual broadcast channel of the station which is a serious design oversight, IMO.

The only to do this, I think, would be to delete the station that is mapped to 38 and then manually tune to 38 (or 38.1) and see what the signal strength meter says. This should work with the two Samsung tuners I use (T451 and H260F), not sure about the Sony HD-DVR. But how is a member of the public supposed to figure out how to get around the channel mapping when the ATSC tuners pretend that the channel mapping is not going on in the first place?

How many people are going to know the station is actually on channel 38 anyway?

Even if you allow channels to voluntarily map to their digital channels, I can guarantee that KRON-4 will not rebrand to KRON-38, and will stay as 4-1 until the end of time.

- Trip

milehighmike

01-12-08, 01:15 PM

Posted by affigatt:
BTW, all of the ATSC tuners I have used, do not tell you the actual broadcast channel of the station which is a serious design oversight, IMO.

The E* OTA tuners I have in my ViP211 and 222 show both the actual and remapped channel.

Falcon_77

01-12-08, 02:24 PM

Posted by affigatt:

The E* OTA tuners I have in my ViP211 and 222 show both the actual and remapped channel.

Both my TV's show the actual broadcast channel (by Freq. on my Sony and by number on my Westinghouse). However, the computer tuners do not.

On my Fusion USB tuner, I have had it leave the channel map as the RF channel with a "-1."

So, I can see this being a problem occasionally and should not be completely overlooked, especially when one is on the fringes and having difficulty getting a lock.

I am glad to see that the coupon program seems to be getting noticed in other parts of the country, but I remain unconvinced that major problems aren't ahead.

Falcon_77

01-12-08, 03:06 PM

kycubsfan

01-12-08, 03:19 PM

I find it incredibly irritating that the FCC is making the channel numbers themselves meaningless.

Especially galling is the remapping of out-of-core UHF channels to spots that won't even exist in the rearranged spectrum.

Might as well let the stations call themselves anything they please.

SnellKrell

01-12-08, 04:28 PM

Thank you, so much.

What a lot of work, and much appreciated!

Trip in VA

01-12-08, 04:58 PM

afiggatt

01-12-08, 05:11 PM

As I said in my post, the public will hardly notice and can deal with this. You assume that only blue hairs will have STB's. I can tell you that is CLEARLY not the case.
I did not say that at all. Where did I imply this would be an issue only for the older folks?? I do think that many people will not be aware of the channel mapping issue so in some cases, they will find it confusing to figure out why they can get virtual 38.1, but can't get a signal meter reading for another station that did not get picked up in scan that is actually on 38. Hopefully few people will have this problem, but I can see this coming up for people picking up stations from overlapping markets where they have a strong station mapped to 38.1 and a weak station in another direction actually on 38. If they understand the channel mapping issue, then they will figure out to delete the virtual 38.1 and check the signal meter for 38 to tweak the antenna aim.

I'm in a location where this might happen. WUTB-DT My 24 in Baltimore (well the antenna is in Catonsville, MD and is STILL at STA power of 530 Watts) will stay on UHF 41. WNVC-DT 56 in Fairfax, VA is currently on UHF 57, but will move to UHF 24. I figure I will be able to get both of these stations once they are at their final power and height. So if I don't get WNVC-DT on the initial scan, but do get WUTB-DT 24, checking the signal strength for WNVC-DT on real 24 becomes an interesting exercise. As a side note, I expect that WNVC-DT moving from out of core channel 57 to 24 will force WUTB to kill it's analog signal before the Feb. 17, 2009 date. February, 2009 will be interesting to watch from the bleachers seats. :p

afiggatt

01-12-08, 06:27 PM

CHeath

01-12-08, 07:17 PM

Falcon_77

01-13-08, 02:41 AM

That's a really nice spreadsheet. Thanks! I might go ahead and replace the copy I have on-hand with yours!

EDIT: Just one thing though, what's with all the uncategorized stations at the bottom?

Thanks, I hope it can be of use. The default sort is by DMA, so the stations at the bottom are ones that did not appear to fit into a DMA.

Hopefully, the auto filter function is showing up. I recently discovered that in XL and have found it to be very powerful. For instance, one can filter only specific DMA's, channel numbers (NTSC, 2007 and/or 2009), ERP, etc., with the drop down menu for each.

Another reason for this project was to find which DMA's were going to be UHF only in 2009. I did not find very many. The ones that I did find were shaded in light blue, but even in some of those there are some minor stations that will still be in VHF. The blue DMA's needed to have the 4 major networks and 1 PBS station or at least that is the standard I was trying to set. :D

For now, it has become a reference tool for me to check which stations are moving where for reception prospects. Since very few DMA's are blue, however, almost all areas will need some VHF-HI performance in addition to UHF.

Keeping up with any changes could be difficult. I have not seen any changes as yet and, hopefully, there shouldn't be too many before 2009.

In looking at VHF ERP's, it is hard to see what the maximums are. It is much less clear than for NTSC. 3.2kW seems to be a common level, but there are some VHF stations over 100kW.

kb7oeb

01-13-08, 03:58 AM

Seems to me the FCC should encourage stations to use their transmit channel as their virtual channel as long as it doesn't overlap.

MeowMeow

01-13-08, 12:37 PM

Seems to me the FCC should encourage stations to use their transmit channel as their virtual channel as long as it doesn't overlap.

Whoa! That would be a marketing disaster for many stations.

Most people don't even refer to their local stations by their call letters. Just "channel 11" or "channel 2". Your talking about trashing decades worth of identity for these stations.

The virtualization idea was actually one of the smarter things the FCC did for the transition.

foxeng

01-13-08, 01:12 PM

In hopes of putting this issue to bed once and for all, here is the actual and complete wording from the FCC Second DTV Review from 2004 on the whole PSIP Major Channel ID issue, section 153:

153. Major/Minor Channel Numbers.
In the NPRM, we noted that the ATSC PSIP standard attaches the assignment of “major channel number” values to a broadcaster’s current NTSC RF channel number regardless of the actual RF channel used for DTV transmission, and sought comment on whether there was any need to modify this standard.

For example, a broadcaster who operates an NTSC service on channel 4 and a DTV service on channel 27 would use the major channel 4. The PSIP “minor channel number” is used to identify programs and other services, which are a part of the DTV service. For example, channel 4.1 may be an HDTV program service and it may be multiplexed with an SDTV service, which is channel 4.2. According to ATSC, this allows a viewer to easily “surf” from, for example, 4.0 (NTSC) to 4.1 (HDTV) to 4.2 (SDTV). ATSC, MSTV/NAB, and others state that the major/minor channel number scheme established in ATSC A/65B will be useful.

ATSC states that the PSIP Standard defines specific requirements for use of “major channel numbers” to provide viewers with a uniform methodology to access DTV services and to avoid conflict with duplicative numbers in a market. The major channel number also allows broadcasters to maintain their local brand identification. We see no reason to modify this standard. During the development of PSIP, ATSC recognized that in some situations broadcasters would need to deviate from the rule that the major channel number is the same as the broadcaster’s NTSC channel number and created certain exceptions. We agree with ATSC and MSTV/NAB that these exceptions should provide broadcasters with the necessary flexibility to address most circumstances. To the extent broadcasters have a unique situation that is not provided for in PSIP, the Commission may grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The correct TSIDs must be used to ensure that receivers link the analog and digital channels properly. Accordingly, broadcasters are required to transmit the TSIDs assigned for their stations in their digital transmission. During the transition period while both analog and digital signals are broadcast, stations are required to transmit the NTSC TSID in line 21, field 2 in order for the receiver to locate the programs referenced in PSIP.

Here is the URL for the document this is pulled out of: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-250542A1.pdf

foxeng

01-13-08, 01:57 PM

And for contrast, here is from the latest Third DTV Review issued 3 weeks ago on some of the PSIP issues.

On AFD (the bit that tells your TV how to format a picture for your screen):
183. We will not require broadcasters to use AFD. Broadcasters that choose to use AFD, however, must adhere to the ATSC DTV transmission standard A/53:2007. Although the latest ATSC DTV transmission standard does not require the use of AFD, we sought comment in the Third DTV Periodic Review NPRM550 on whether to require AFD when the active video portion picture does not completely fill the coded picture. All commenters on this issue agree that AFD should remain voluntary.

184. We agree with commenters that it would be premature to require mandatory broadcaster use of AFD, given that the standard is relatively new and has not yet been required through the ATSC standard. We do, however, encourage television manufacturers to implement the SMPTE standard and CEA-CEB16 into their TV sets, which will better allow broadcasters to take advantage of tools such as AFD to ensure that viewers receive a signal that is optimized for their TV set. We find that these voluntary, industry driven efforts are sufficient and, thus, will not require broadcasters to use AFD until such time that AFD data can be consistently deployed by manufacturers and content providers, and received by the public. For example, we recognize that not all content providers now uniformly provide AFD data to broadcasters. Moreover, not all consumers are equipped to obtain the benefits of AFD. We will monitor and may revisit it when more content providers provide AFD data to broadcasters and when more consumers obtain DTV receiving equipment that could pass through the AFD data to them. We expect that broadcasters will have an incentive to use AFD to make their programming attractive to viewers when they are ready and able to do so. We note that we will address the issue raised in comments concerning requirements that certain MVPDs pass through AFD data to their subscribers. This issue is raised in the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the DTV Must Carry proceeding.

On the issue of the ATSC PSIP stand in general:

185. We adopt our proposal in the Third DTV Periodic Review NPRM557 to update Section 73.682(d) to reflect the latest revisions to the ATSC PSIP standard since the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order. Accordingly, we will incorporate into Section 73.682(d) by reference the latest version of the ATSC PSIP standard A/65C into our rules. The record supports updating our rules to reflect the latest version of the ATSC PSIP standard, which includes additional benefits such as updated Event Information Tables (“EITs”). We find that the updated ATSC PSIP standard enhances consumers’ viewing experience by providing detailed information about digital channels and programs, such as how to find a program’s closed captions, multiple streams and V-chip information. We agree with the commenters that the benefits of the updated ATSC PSIP standard to both broadcasters and consumers outweighs any additional burden placed on broadcasters. We recognize, however, that it may take time for broadcasters to implement the new ATSC PSIP standard. Therefore, in order to give broadcasters adequate time to come into compliance, this requirement will take effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.

On the issue of Major Channel numbers, the Commission reaffirms its position taken in the Second DTV Review:

186. PSIP data is transmitted along with a station’s DTV signal and provides DTV receivers with information about the station and what is being broadcast. PSIP data provides a method for DTV receivers to identify a DTV station and to determine how a receiver can tune to it. For any given station, the PSIP data transmitted along with the digital signal identifies both its DTV channel number and its analog channel number (referred to as the “major” channel number), thereby making it easy for viewers to tune to the station’s DTV channel even if they only know the station’s major channel number. In addition, PSIP data tells the receiver whether multiple program streams are being broadcast and, if so, how to find them. It also identifies whether the programs are closed captioned, conveys available V-chip information, and provides program information, among other things.

URL for this document is: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-228A1.pdf

bb37

01-13-08, 03:39 PM

Yes, it requires DeLorme TopoUSA to view (I made it with 5.0, but I imagine should work with newer versions--6.0 and 7.0--as well as with StreetAtlasUSA).
Works fine with TopoUSA 6.0.

Thanks to you and Falcon_77 for crunching all this data. :)

HIPAR

01-13-08, 03:51 PM

For the 55 years I've been watching TV, I have never had a problem tuning to the actual RF channel to watch it. Now I have a new-fangled DTV that is supposed to figure that out for me by scanning for those signals and confusing me by telling me they are on channels they aren't. Heck, some of these DTVs won't even give you the option to do it the 'old' way.

--- CHAS

Larry Kenney

01-13-08, 04:44 PM

Thanks for the spreadsheet, Falcon. You did a great job on it! It's easy to read and, at least for the San Francisco and Sacramento markets, is exactly right.

I've had a listing on my web site for quite some time for this area. I've had the present line up for several years, and now, at the bottom of the page, I've added the "after the transition" list, including new low power stations. Anyone interested in seeing it can check out:
http://www.choisser.com/sfonair.html

When I first looked at your spreadsheet, I was wondering what the light blue shading indicated, and what the random list of stations were at the bottom. Thanks for the explanation. I thought every station was assigned to a DMA, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

Again, thanks for the package!

Larry
SF

Trip in VA

01-13-08, 06:26 PM

I thought every station was assigned to a DMA, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

No, you're right, every station in the continental US and Hawaii is in a DMA. There's a lot of stations that just weren't placed in one, and if you're not familiar with geography, it can be difficult to know which stations go where. I was going to offer to send one updated for DMAs on all those stations at the bottom, but I don't know that I'll have the time anymore since there's just so many of them.

- Trip

Desert Hawk

01-13-08, 06:54 PM

"ATSC recognized that in some situations broadcasters would need to deviate from the rule that the major channel number is the same as the broadcaster’s NTSC channel number and created certain exceptions. We agree with ATSC and MSTV/NAB that these exceptions should provide broadcasters with the necessary flexibility to address most circumstances."

So then it is possible that the FCC might grant KERO analog 23 digital RF 10 permission to map to 10-1 post transition?

George Molnar

01-13-08, 08:40 PM

The current FCC rules require stations to identify as their analog channel number, even after the transition. This is to keep public confusion to a minimum. So a station that was on channel 2 as an analog and then stays on 51 digital, will still be known as channel 2. If a new station (not on pre-transition) comes up on channel 2, they CAN'T call themselves channel 2 but has pick a channel number not in use in the area to be known as. Cable channels aren't in the legal ID mix but some UHF stations are known by their cable channel number, if they can get all of the cablecos to put them on the same channel. WCNC Charlotte is on 36 but calls itself 6News because they are on cable channel 6 in the area.

foxeng: You have said "has to pick a channel number not in use in the area to be known as" but I believe that according to the FCC at paragraphs 169-173 starting on p.75 at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A1.doc they'd have to comply with ASTC A65/C and doesn't that say something different?? Namely, they'd have to pick the DTV channel of the station which formerly occupied the analog channel they're on. This is described under 1-4) of Annex B on page 90 of ATSC A 65/C at http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_65cr1_with_amend_1.pdf

Trip in VA

01-13-08, 09:03 PM

foxeng

01-13-08, 09:46 PM

So then it is possible that the FCC might grant KERO analog 23 digital RF 10 permission to map to 10-1 post transition?

It is possible but doubtful. KERO is not the only station in this situation. The FCC does look at something to see if it causes a precedent and how that effects the public interest. It looks very doubtful they would waiver this because just about every market will have a similar situation. If the FCC thought it was that important of an issue, they would have addressed it in this document, hence the "case by case basis" clause.

foxeng

01-13-08, 09:54 PM

foxeng: You have said "has to pick a channel number not in use in the area to be known as" but I believe that according to the FCC at paragraphs 169-173 starting on p.75 at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A1.doc they'd have to comply with ASTC A65/C and doesn't that say something different?? Namely, they'd have to pick the DTV channel of the station which formerly occupied the analog channel they're on. This is described under 1-4) of Annex B on page 90 of ATSC A 65/C at http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_65cr1_with_amend_1.pdf

In another section of the Second DTV Review, the FCC addresses the issue of a station that didn't have an analog channel because a) it came on as a digital only or b) it comes on after the transition. If a station ever had an analog channel, then by law they must ID themselves with the analog channel number. If a station was never an analog station, then it would use the digital channel they were on. If a new station came on the air post transition and it is on a former analog channel in that market with another station already using that channel number, then the station must pick a virtural channel that isn't in use in the market and then register it with the FCC. This was widely discussed on AVS when the Second DTV Review came out in 2004.

Falcon_77

01-14-08, 01:42 AM

No, you're right, every station in the continental US and Hawaii is in a DMA. There's a lot of stations that just weren't placed in one, and if you're not familiar with geography, it can be difficult to know which stations go where. I was going to offer to send one updated for DMAs on all those stations at the bottom, but I don't know that I'll have the time anymore since there's just so many of them.

I will see what I can come up with as there are quite a few not currently attached to a DMA on the spreadsheet.

I found that a few call signs were duplicated. The ones needing correction are:

73692, WBNA - Louisville, KY
33875, KCRA - Sacramento, CA (must have transposed with my local KRCA)
9922, WCMV - Traverse City, MI
4110, WDWL - San Juan, PR

I'm also trying to figure out the status of KTFL (Flagstaff, AZ), which is why it is in red. It was on the election list, but I can't find it in the current FCC database.

I am open to suggestions and correction requests. :)

As the above and other updates are made, should I correct the existing upload, re-upload updates to a new post or just put it on a website?

George Molnar

01-14-08, 07:50 AM

In another section of the Second DTV Review, the FCC addresses the issue of a station that didn't have an analog channel because a) it came on as a digital only or b) it comes on after the transition. If a station ever had an analog channel, then by law they must ID themselves with the analog channel number. If a station was never an analog station, then it would use the digital channel they were on. If a new station came on the air post transition and it is on a former analog channel in that market with another station already using that channel number, then the station must pick a virtural channel that isn't in use in the market and then register it with the FCC. This was widely discussed on AVS when the Second DTV Review came out in 2004.

The FCC is so contradictory! Do you know where in the Second DTV Review is this mentioned? What do you make of the language in #1-4 of Annex B in ATSC A 65/C ??

afiggatt

01-14-08, 10:15 AM

I'm also trying to figure out the status of KTFL (Flagstaff, AZ), which is why it is in red. It was on the election list, but I can't find it in the current FCC database.
You or the rest of us should use wikipedia to look up the stations you can't assign to a DMA or figure out; might provide the info. Wiki page for KTFL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTFL. "The station signed off June 1, 2006, with its broadcasting license cancelled by the FCC." Easy fix - delete row from spreadsheet! For example, KVNV in Ely, NV is a satellite station of KVBC in Las Vegas, so one would think it is part of the Las Vegas DMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVNV).

Rather than clutter this thread, perhaps people should send private messages via avsforum or email you with corrections if you want to revise the spreadsheet.

Dr Touchtone

01-14-08, 10:56 AM

The FCC is so contradictory! Do you know where in the Second DTV Review is this mentioned? What do you make of the language in #1-4 of Annex B in ATSC A 65/C ??

I agree!!! After analog sunset of full power, the DTV's should change their PSIP to show the correct RF channel...We had a LP FOX digital come on the air in SE Texas recently....showed 36-1 and they were on RF36....sure enough, about 2 weeks later, their PSIP was changed to show 64-1 (their analog LP signal)...I SAW it change as the TV was changed to their channel..it 1st showed 36-1 THEN switched to 64-1 in a second....and the TV kept the channel mapped....SOOOO DTVs could EASILY change their PSIP BACK to show the correct RF channel....WHY SHOULD THEY NOT??? heck 52-69 is going bye bye, everyone KNOWS 2-6 is not 2-6 on digital (well most are not..our local 6 is 21 and staying on UHF)....Why lie to the public??? Radio AND TV stations have changed frequency before in their history (not all but a lot have!)..its not like it hasnt happened before....The FCC is sooo full of hogwash right now...and the NAB went along with it? Ok...once the analogs are gone, then SSSOOO WHAT?? Time to show the correct RF channel and get on with it.
The DOCTOR has spoken ;)

foxeng

01-14-08, 12:15 PM

I think I know where the misunderstanding is coming from here.

Each station is issued a UNIQUE digital ID from the FCC (currently being a table created by ATSC several years ago and approved by the FCC) called a TSID or Transport Stream ID. This is a 4 digit HEX number that is unique to each station and major channel numbers are linked to it. This is how you can have a virtual channel 38 and an unrelated actual RF channel 38 (with a different virtual channel number) listed in the same EPG and be able to tune to both depending on which one you click on. The VCT (Virtual Channel Table) holds 3 items (the TSID, RF channel and Virtual Channel) that are linked together and this is how the tuner knows which channel to actually select, for each station. Tuners do not use virtual or RF channels to determine where to tune but use the TSID as the reference and then looks to see where to tune for that station. When you enter the virtual channel number, the TSID is referenced and the correct RF channel is selected. If the TSID is not present or is the same as another station in the market (a common problem in the early days when stations never bothered to correctly set the TSID and left it with the default 0 or 1) stations will not be received because the tuner will not know which TSID to use to reference the correct RF channel (more than one of the same number).

In the Second DTV Review, the FCC required stations to set minimum number of fields to the stations unique parameters and that stopped that problem and channel remapping began to work correctly.

That is why ATSC nor the FCC is concerned over this issue. If stations have their PSIP set correctly and receivers implement the PSIP protocol correctly, this issue doesn't exist. Stations are doing it now (being required by the FCC for over 3 years now) and we can only hope the receiver manufactures are doing their part (which we know for a fact some aren't). If they aren't, there is nothing the stations can do and the FCC will need to do more oversight on the receiver manufacturers and yeah, that viewer suffers. But you can't hold up the whole thing over a few isolated viewers because some overseas manufacturer cut corners. That is just life. We all have to deal with it.

dline

01-14-08, 03:16 PM

Technically, the only real reason a lay person would need to know a station's "real" channel -- unless they're building some kind of single channel custom setup -- is to figure out what kind of antenna they need, VHF or UHF. For the most part the answer is going to be "both," just as it is now. Heck, where I currently live, we've got more pressing issues -- like signals I need coming from three different directions and a street layout that's not conducive to figuring out directions of any kind.

George Molnar

01-14-08, 03:50 PM

foxeng

01-14-08, 05:28 PM

foxeng, then are you saying 2nd Report allows new DTV stations to skip ATSC A65/C Annex B (1) language that says: "4) If, after the transition, a previously used NTSC RF channel in a market is assigned to a newly-licensed DTV broadcaster in that market, the newly-licensed DTV broadcaster shall use, as his major_channel_number, the number of the DTV RF channel originally allocated to the previous NTSC licensee of the assigned channel" and just chose any available number and notify the FCC?

The FCC will not allow two stations in the same market to brand thenselves with the same channel number. The rules state that stations will use their analog channel number as their channel branding number no matter what RF channel they ultimately wind up on. If a station moves to a previously used analog channel and they themselves did have an analog channel, then they would use their old analog channel number, not the old analog channel they wind up on. If a new station came on the air post transition on a previously used analog channel, and another station in the market already uses that channel number, they have to register an unused branding channel number in the market. If the RF channel isn't being used for branding by another station, then they use their actual RF channel as their virtual branding channel.

For instance, station A used channel 2 as their analog channel. They elected to stay on their digital channel 51 (TSID 1). They would still be channel 2, even though they are now on channel 51, TSID 1. Station B had analog channel 35 (TSID 2) and moved to channel 2. Station B would still be channel 35 even though they are on channel 2 (still TSID 2). Station C is a new station, never having an analog channel. They come on channel 35 (TSID 3). Since there is already a channel 35, they have to register another channel number that is not already in use in the market (still TSID 3). Station D (TSID 4) is a new station and is on channel 14, a channel that has never been used in that market. They would then use 14 as their virtual branding channel number and their actual RF channel number (TSID 4).

Now all four stations have unique TSID's and when a receiver locks on to the TSID, the remapping of the virtual channels to RF channels are then locked to the TSID of each station thereby eliminating the "same station" on two channels issue everyone is all up in arms about.

When a station makes their channel change, they should update their PSIP to reflect their new RF channel so when a receiver is scanned or direct entry is made, the VCT will update the TSID with the new virtual to RF mapping.

That is how it works.

Nitewatchman

01-14-08, 07:40 PM

That is why every digital tuner, STB or TV has a scan function and the FCC is requiring stations to use PSIP.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Every digital tuner, STB or TV doesn't often find every receivable station via a "scan function", depending upon how antenna is orientated/etc.

Depending upon how various channel tuning/selection issues are implemented by receiver designers, The PSIP channel "remapping" regarding stations whose DTV RF channel # is different from PSIP VCT Major channel #(which is and will be most of them) may be a problem in SOME or MANY cases for average Joe and everyone else(not just the "blue hairs") and his "rabbit ears" mainly because the PSIP from any given station can't be decoded or used unless a signal(from each and every station in his area it's possible to receive) sufficient for a signal lock has been acheived by the receiver for each and every station in the area it's possible to receive.

Different antenna adjustment may be required in some or many cases to achieve a signal lock on each and every station for which reception is desired or any given "set" of stations, Thus tuning to the known "remapped channel number" before a signal lock is acheived(including after a receiver's channel memory has been "wiped" by additional "full" channel scans with antenna at a "bad" orientation) on any particular station and trying to look at a "signal meter" for help in adjusting antenna properly is an exercise in futility and will not help.

Average joe(and everyone else) at the very least needs not only some sort of signal "quality" meter on their receiver, but also needs to know the RF channel # to tune to, and also needs to have a way to "tune" or "scan in" that RF channel # for stations which aren't found via an "autoscan" on an "indivdual" basis ... Of course, these things also need to be designed so a person can tune to or indivdually "scan" any RF channel number(2-69, now), including in cases when a PSIP VCT Major Channel # from a "different station" may be the same ch # as a RF channel # in the area ...

It's not that there is anything "wrong" with PSIP VCT and how they're doing it per A65/c + FCC rules, but in some cases, some (or many) OTA users will need a way to initially "tune"+individually scan in some stations using the RF channel # on their receivers, and they need to know what that is ....

.... the public will hardly notice

Yeah, it's no big deal. They probably won't notice if a few stations don't show up on their TV after a auto channel scan. And if they do notice, some of them will be able to "figure it out", the others either just won't watch those stations(-- could be your station they aren't watching but who cares, right? No big deal ) or they can just get cable or satellite right? No big deal ....

Problem solved ....

And remember, in most markets, the majority of viewers are cable or sat and so this will not even be an issue.

That Makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you're an OTA viewer who is having a problem with this, it's an issue for you, and it's an issue for the station you aren't watching(yeah, so maybe they don't care, that doesn't make it any less of an issue either), regardless of how many people in your area subscribe to cable or satellite ....

foxeng

01-14-08, 09:16 PM

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Every digital tuner, STB or TV doesn't often find every receivable station via a "scan function", depending upon how antenna is orientated/etc.

That isn't what I said and you know it. What I said was every digital tuner HAS a scan feature. Period. End of my statement. It isn't the tuners fault that all of the stations are not in the same direction, nor is it the stations fault nor the viewer. It is a fact of life.

Depending upon how various channel tuning/selection issues are implemented by receiver designers, The PSIP channel "remapping" regarding stations whose DTV RF channel # is different from PSIP VCT Major channel #(which is and will be most of them) may be a problem in SOME or MANY cases for average Joe and everyone else(not just the "blue hairs") and his "rabbit ears" mainly because the PSIP from any given station can't be decoded or used unless a signal(from each and every station in his area it's possible to receive) sufficient for a signal lock has been acheived by the receiver for each and every station in the area it's possible to receive.

We shall see won't we. So far, the people I have talked to, and this is people of all ages since digital went on the air in my market 6 years ago with every conceivable antenna from rabbit ears on the TV to mega antenna systems on towers, PSIP and channel mapping HAS NOT BEEN AN ISSUE. I suspect the same can be said in the majority of the country as well. The sky IS NOT falling. There ARE people watching digital TV OTA hassle free.

Different antenna adjustment may be required in some or many cases to achieve a signal lock on each and every station for which reception is desired or any given "set" of stations, Thus tuning to the known "remapped channel number" before a signal lock is acheived(including after a receiver's channel memory has been "wiped" by additional "full" channel scans with antenna at a "bad" orientation) on any particular station and trying to look at a "signal meter" for help in adjusting antenna properly is an exercise in futility and will not help.

You make the assumption that EVERY tuner wipes the VCT clean every scan. This is NOT true. Many tuners now (but not all) will allow an update scan as well as a full rescan for this very issue you seem to think is a deal breaker. So far it doesn't seem to be.

Of course, these things also need to be designed so a person can tune to or indivdually "scan" any RF channel number(2-69, now), including in cases when a PSIP VCT Major Channel # from a "different station" may be the same ch # as a RF channel # in the area ...

That is what the TSID is for so you CAN have multiple stations with different RF channels and the same virtual channel or vise versa. This does work and has worked on every STB I have owned since 2002. I do have two stations on the SAME RF channel with different virtual channels (one is channel 9 and the other is channel 10 and both are on RF channel 34) in markets on my fringe. I get both stations with not problem depending on the direction of the antenna and the station I click on. Again, the sky isn't falling. It works as advertised.

It's not that there is anything "wrong" with PSIP VCT and how they're doing it per A65/c + FCC rules, but in some cases, some (or many) OTA users will need a way to initially "tune"+individually scan in some stations using the RF channel # on their receivers, and they need to know what that is ....

Then viewers will do what they have always done since the start of broadcasting, as they are doing now when they have reception problems, they call the station and complain. I don't see that changing just because the TV signal isn't analog anymore.

Yeah, it's no big deal. They probably won't notice if a few stations don't show up on their TV after a auto channel scan. And if they do notice, some of them will be able to "figure it out", the others either just won't watch those stations(-- could be your station they aren't watching but who cares, right? No big deal ) or they can just get cable or satellite right? No big deal ....

Problem solved ....

Please read my above statement, again.

That Makes no sense whatsoever to me. If you're an OTA viewer who is having a problem with this, it's an issue for you, and it's an issue for the station you aren't watching(yeah, so maybe they don't care, that doesn't make it any less of an issue either), regardless of how many people in your area subscribe to cable or satellite ....

The truth is 15% of all viewers receive OTA nationwide. That is indisputable. That means that 1 out 6 people will have a STB. The rest will be on sat or cable. That makes perfect sense. Depending on their market, they may or may not have reception issues. If they have reception issues, I suspect they already do but because it is analog, they put up with it because there is something of a signal. Again, they will call the station in question if it becomes intolerable. They do now. At that point, it is up to the individual stations to work with the viewer. It isn't the receiver manufacturer or FCC to deal with specific cases if the receiver is functioning correctly and the viewer has a usable antenna system. If the station chooses to not help, then the station deserves what they get. It amazes me how people have come to think television is a God given right and everyone needs to bow down to them to help them. No where does it say in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that everyone is owed ALL television. The FCC is tasked to be sure the public has access to RF services. They are not tasked to GUARANTEE service. Big difference. That is the way it has always been since day one and that is the state of affairs now.

kb7oeb

01-14-08, 11:36 PM

Interesting discussion, curious how this applies to a local low power station KAZT-CA. They are an independent with translators all over the state and their full power station is in northern Arizona but I think still part of the Phoenix DMA (seems to be the whole state minus Tucson and Yuma). They just this week converted their Phoenix analog CA 27 to digital. Their PSIP is not working yet so they show up as 27 but their website said they will be on 7.1. Channel 7 is the full power station analog and isn't receivable in Phoenix.

I was a bit surprised they will be using 7.1, will it be normal for most translators(repeaters?) to use the main analog channel as the virtual channel? I also wondered if all the translators will have the same TSID?

Nitewatchman

01-15-08, 04:54 AM

That isn't what I said and you know it. What I said was every digital tuner HAS a scan feature. Period. End of my statement.

Excuse me? Sorry, I can read, and The following(partly what I was responding to/commenting about) is most DEFINTELY NOT The same as that, but is exactly what you said in response to Larry Kenney's post about the situation in SF area :

That is why every digital tuner, STB or TV has a scan function and the FCC is requiring stations to use PSIP. If the stations are doing what they are suppose to, the public will hardly even notice after a scan.
What I said was every digital tuner HAS a scan feature. Period.

Here's the link to that post : :http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12788266&postcount=384:

And, what I said regarding that is that an "auto scan feature" is not adequete for all OTA viewers needs regarding achieving channel "acquistion" and therefore reception of all their local stations. Yes, I know you know that, but my post is not just "for you", it's for anyone who wants to read it .....

In some (or many) cases, manual channel acquistion for DTV allowing user to "input" a RF channel number and to look at some sort of meter is necessary.

Sorry it seems you don't "like me saying that" for some reason, but that's how it is.

It isn't the tuners fault that all of the stations are not in the same direction, nor is it the stations fault nor the viewer. It is a fact of life.

Yes. Funny stuff. It is also a fact that the issues I was commenting on would NOT be problem issues at all if TPTB had decided the VCT major channel # would be the same as RF channel number .. [update] NO, I'm not advocating that, AND Yes, it they were to have done that(or decide in the future to do that) there would be other "problems" with that solution as well ... [end update]

We shall see won't we.

We've already seen what the problem issues with it are. It's going to be a problem for some or many folks, I made no prediction or comment in my post about "how many" would be effected or how many would not be able to "figure out" how to scan in "individual channels" by RF channel/etc as needed ...

So, I'll ask you nicely, Please read more carefully, [update], although I'll do it for this response, sorry, but I really don't have time for this sort of nonsense ..... [end update]

So far, the people I have talked to, and this is people of all ages since digital went on the air in my market 6 years ago with every conceivable antenna from rabbit ears on the TV to mega antenna systems on towers, PSIP and channel mapping HAS NOT BEEN AN ISSUE.

That's nice. Since you like to cap some words, I'll start doing it too. Who knows, Maybe that way perhaps you'll actually READ posts a bit more carefully ....

I know for some receivers I have, I have to know the RF channel numbers to "scan in" several local stations from my location(even with the "newest" receivers on the market/latest generation chipsets). Sorry, but THAT's "AN ISSUE" if I didn't know what the RF channel number was ...

And/or on a couple of newer DVD recorders with ATSC receivers I just picked up, I not only need to know the RF channels involved, I also need to know how to orient antenna "properly" first before doing a "add digital channel scan", because they have no signal quality meter of any sort. In order to "scan channels in" which weren't found with antenna in another posistion, If I didn't know *how* to *orient that antenna" for those stations, I'd probably mostly be SOL other than via "trial and error" futizing around since they don't have any sort of "signal meter" on them ... .. Which for me is easy to do with directional antennas with rotor such as I use, but It might not be so easy if I'm using a settop pair of "rabbit ears" and/or didn't have other receivers signal meters to look at, That's "AN ISSUE" to some degree because I need to know the correct way to orient antenna in order to "scan in" some stations ....

AND NO, I *personally* don't have any problem with any of that, never said I did. I can "find" FCC's TV query just fine and get the RF channel numbers from there or antennaweb or TVfool site .... And NO, I'm an not saying anyone else *WILL* have problems with it either and can't "figure it out", I'm just saying they *could* have problems with it ....

AND I also know I frequently come across posts on this very forum where folks have had problems with this(sometimes they're having problems with it and don't even realize it), and wonder why they aren't getting such and such station(s), and why they don't get any "signal reading" when they "punch in" what is the VCT major channel number ....

It's not that it's a big "problem" to help folks "fix", but for one thing, it's difficult to know what is going on(they may have other "problems" with their setup that are causing poor reception that have nothing to do with this "issue") since different receivers have so many different ways of "handing" this sort of thing. AND, it can be very tedious to "find out" how THEIR particular receiver does it and try to help them out, so one can help THEM find the way to effectively use their "manual channel add" option as necessary when a station they should be receiving doesn't pop up via their auto channel scan ..

There ARE people watching digital TV OTA hassle free.

Including me. I've been doing it since 2001. I didn't consider it a "hassle" to use the RF channel number before early 2004 for those stations in my area which were NOT sending *any* PSIP (about 1/2 of them weren't, more "earlier on") .. Actually, what I did back then was just turn PSIP remapping OFF on my DTC 100, and just used the RF channel for all of them ...

HOWEVER That doesn't mean there aren't SOME things which couldn't+should be better and make it less "hassle free" for folks, and it also doesn't mean because I TALK a bit about those things that I somehow think TV is a "god given right", how ridiculous ....

You make the assumption that EVERY tuner wipes the VCT clean every scan.

Wrong. I made no such assumption, OF COURSE I would not make such assumptions since I *OWN* ATSC receivers which don't wipe the stored VCT/TSID info clean on "every scan" ...

I believe I was *very clear* that what I was reffering to in that regard was what happens when a scan *is* performed which wipes the stored VCT info out, regarding *scan options* which *do* "wipe out" all the stored VCT info for such a "full scan", not scan options which don't ....

I have one receiver here which allows you to do a "full" scan(wipes everything out) or a "add digital channel" scan(which doesn't wipe everything out), and another which allows you to "scan in" channels indivdually(again you have to know the RF channel #) to "add" to what was found via a "full scan" so, again obviously I would not be making that assumption ...

With all due respect, I do believe it appears however, that it is YOU who is making a LOT of assumptions here about ME and what I'm saying, but it just so happens those assumptions are just PLAIN WRONG. And really by now, frankly I think you should KNOW BETTER than that ..... I think we've had enough discussions concerning this or that of a techincal nature and otherwise in the past that you should know I am not someone who believes I have some sort of "god given right" to OTA TV reception, nor have ANY of my comments in any of my posts EVER been based on any such ridiculousnesss ...

So, I would venture to guess Either you're reading too much "wrong stuff" into what I'm saying, or are really not reading what I posted carefully enough, or you're doing "something else", which I won't mention or speculate about "in public" because what I'd have to say about it would be likely be quite "unprofessional", and perhaps "out of bounds" for this forum ....

This is NOT true.

Of course it isn't.

This very issue you seem to think is a deal breaker.

I said or think no such thing.

I do think you're putting words and thoughts in My mouth that I did NOT say AND DID NOT intend to say .....

That is what the TSID is for so you CAN have multiple stations with different RF channels and the same virtual channel or vise versa.

What you're talking about is NOT the situation I described.

I know all about TSID(transport stream ID). For example, With TSID, you can even have multiple stations with the same VCT major/minor channel numbers in the receiver's "memory". I've seen this happen and it works just fine even for "channel surfing" but can only access one stations' streams if I directly "punch in" one of those "same' VCT Major/minor channel #'s, I have to "channel up/down" to get to other station's streams with the same Major/minor channel # ..

However, TSID has nothing to do with the situation I was attempting to describe as it involves *some* receivers, which I attempted to address in a short/consise manner(which perhaps I didn't do very well). And, to further clarify --- I *did not say* all the receivers out there don't have a "way" to handle the situation, I was just trying to be all-inclusive regarding what recievers *do* need to be able to do .... Why did I do that? Because it's obvious different receivers handle these things VERY differently regarding what the user needs to "do", and also because it's obvious some folks are confused regarding these issues, in fact, It's obvious some folks are CLUELESS about it, and I suspect it probably "helps" if you understand the facts/issues involved ...

So, regarding this particular issue, I've bolded the relevant portion What I said WAS :

.... when a PSIP VCT Major Channel # from a "different station" may be the same ch # as a RF channel # in the area ...

Regarding local reception, That situation isn't happening now (in any situation I'm aware of, currently at least), because the local analog station/counterpart is on that RF channel #. Expect it will happen after analog shut off in *some* situations, however ....

I'll say it in a "different" way then, regarding a direct observation and how one of my receivers "works" :

On *SOME* recievers that allow "direct tuning" to the RF channel number for a DTV station(such as is necessary in some cases on these receivers to "adjust antenna" for best results while looking at signal meter), If you have a VCT major channel number stored that is the *same* # as a RF channel # you want to "tune to", you *can't* directly tune to that RF channel # ....

In these cases, with these specific receiver models(including one of mine INSIDE A TV) it Doesn't matter what the TSID is from either Stream from either station(and you're Not going to GET the TSID until you get "enough signal" from each station involved, including when antenna is orientated such that there's not enough signal to decode the TSID from "some stations"), .... I know, because I have receivers like this, if I need to tune directly/manually to that RF channel number, I have to "remove" the DTV station with the "corresonding VCT Major channel # from the "channel edit list" (or rescan with antenna unhooked) in order to be able tune directly to that RF channel # so I can then "scan that station into memory" ...

Now, on the receivers I have that do that, in short, there is "allways a way" to accomplish whatever you need to do, but it is not allways obvious, is sometimes cumbersome and is not well described(if it is "described" at all, sometimes there is NO mention of any of it) in the user manual .....

This does work and has worked on every STB I have owned since 2002. I do have two stations on the SAME RF channel with different virtual channels (one is channel 9 and the other is channel 10 and both are on RF channel 34) in markets on my fringe.

Yep, that works great here as well "on every DTV receiver I have owned since 2001" --- I've lost count it's about 10 of them, now ... As one example I've seen quite often --- WBNS-DT 21 Columbus, OH remaps to 10-x, turn antenna a bit, get WUPX-DT 21 Morehead, KY, remaps to 67-x --- ,again, that's not the situation I described which you are commenting on in reply to my post ...

I said RF channel number for one station being the SAME as VCT major channel number , NOT the same as another stations RF channel #, and NOT a VCT major/minor channel # being the same as another stations VCT major or major/minor channel #'s ......

SO, Here's a direct example of EXACTLY what I was getting at, as it involves one particular receiver of mine : WBNS-DT Columbus(azimuth 70 degrees), on RF 21, remaps to VCT major/minor channel 10-1. WCPO-DT, RF 10, Cincinnati, Remaps to 9.1. With antenna aimed towards Columbus, do a scan, WBNS-DT is received(not going to get WCPO-DT's TSID with antenna aimed that way). Aim antenna at Cincinnati, *CAN'T* tune directly to channel 10(which I need to do), if I do a "scan" on this particular receiver(It only has one "scan" option, which wipes everything out) it will wipe everything out, and of course I'm not going to get WBNS-DT's VCT info or TSID info with antenna aimed at Cincinnati(azimuth 188~193) ....

*however*, I can just go into this receiver's "channel edit" screen(which *only* uses the RF channel numbers - which is a GREAT idea, it works wonderfully) and "add"/"select" channel 10 and that will "work" ..... So there *is* a way ...

ALL I said, and ALL I'm just saying is *has* to be a way on all receivers to handle this sort of thing, *and* I'm NOT saying there isn't on all receivers out there, I'm just saying it is IMPORTANT that there *IS* a way to do it on all receivers -- AND, I'm saying just telling people to do a "scan" ain't allways going to be enough .... HOPEFULLY There is a way to do this on all receivers, maybe there is, I don't know, Just saying there Needs to be ..... Is that repetitive enough I wonder or will I have to repeat all this again later ?

There IS a way (some are more cumbersome than others) on all my receivers I "have owned" since 2001, and in *some cases*, the OTA viewer will need to know/be familiar with how their particular receiver works in ORDER to be able to "scan in" and watch all their local stations!!!! ..... AND, this info is often NOT provided in the user manuals !!! AND, It sounds "simple", but it may not allways be so easy for you to provide the proper guidance necessary as it involves his/her particular equipment to help a viewer who calls you with such a "problem" ......

I DID NOT say the "SKY was FALLING" !!!! I did NOT say Receiver manufactuers, FCC, broadcasters or anyone else "owes me" or anyone else a receiver that "works" for all of this. I AM saying, in order for reception to be acheived in all cases of ALL local stations where a sufficent signal is present, then THESE THINGS need to happen given the Use of PSIP VCT info .... Crazy, me, I for one DO CARE whether or not OTA DTV works well for folks (EVERYONE that can get it, whether or NOT they are OTA only or also use), and I do also KNOW SOME broadcasters do care as well, others don't care a bit, and really only are concerned about cable/sat carriage ...

Then viewers will do what they have always done since the start of broadcasting, as they are doing now when they have reception problems,

Agree with that ...

they call the station and complain. I don't see that changing just because the TV signal isn't analog anymore.

Some will call the station, but I suspect most won't. Other than a few folks on this forum, I don't know anyone who would. If they can't "figure it out", They just won't watch the stations that they can't tune in, for some, they really won't care about the stations they're not getting as long as they can get the news/etc and/or the programs they watch from the stations that do pop up in the "autoscan" ...

The truth is 15% of all viewers receive OTA nationwide. That is indisputable. That means that 1 out 6 people will have a STB. The rest will be on sat or cable. That makes perfect sense.

First, Have a STB? Some People watch OTA DTV/HD on Internal DTV receivers in our/their sets as well, not just with STB's ....

Secondly, actually, I hesitate to bring this up as I KNOW you know better --- however, regarding your "15% of all viewers receive OTA nationwide" point, that is wrong and actually quite disputable. 15% of all households(or viewers) are OTA ONLY viewers, that is true. I don't know what the number of viewers are who receive OTA in some fashion in addition to cable or satellite, but obviously it's higher than the numbers which are OTA only ...

Lastly, So ? Again, as a OTA viewer, If I'm having "reception problems", or problems with "channel tuning issues", then I'm having a "problem issue" with it, regardless of how many people are are using cable or satellite in my area ...

Depending on their market, they may or may not have reception issues.

co-location of all transmit facilities is nice, but it doesn't necessarily completely solve these problems even in markets where all stations are co-located. For instance, multipath can often be very frequency specific issue, and broadband receive antennas also do not behave exactly the same across all TV band frequencies .... So, in those cases you *still* might have cases where all the stations aren't found via a autochannel scan ....

but because it is analog, they put up with it because there is something of a signal.

With digital, they're not going to be able to easily+intuitvely adjust the "rabbit ears" for "best picture" when they "tune to channel 7" (let's say that's a a VCT major channel number, not a RF channel) ... IF all they get is a "blank screen", that's going to continue to be ALL they get unless they get to the point of figuring out what the RF channel number is and or how to aim antenna and do a "add channel scan" to "scan in" those stations ...

Again, they will call the station in question if it becomes intolerable. They do now. At that point, it is up to the individual stations to work with the viewer.

Again, I hate to break this to you, but I don't think most people will call the station if they're having these sorts of problems, at least that's not been my experience .... They just "deal with it", which among other things may just mean not watching the station they're having problems with, or in some cases, may just mean they get rid of the TV altogether and replace it with other furniture when the analogs go dark .....

It amazes me how people have come to think television is a God given right and everyone needs to bow down to them to help them. No where does it say in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that everyone is owed ALL television. The FCC is tasked to be sure the public has access to RF services. They are not tasked to GUARANTEE service. Big difference. That is the way it has always been since day one and that is the state of affairs now.

Ok, this is the part where I'll TRY to keep being "nice" but it becomes awfully difficult ....

Noone "owes me" anything regarding TV or anything else. So, If you're referring to me and have somehow inferred I am one of "those people" and gathered all of that from my post, or any of my other posts elsewhere, with all due respect, I take great exception to that comment, and in that context your remarks could NOT BE MORE WRONG or "MORE FULL OF IT" .... As nothing could be FURTHER from the truth ...

This thing that broadcasters have the privilage to broadcast on, and this thing the gov't on "my behalf" "manages" ... This thing called the "public airwaves", which ARE IN part MY airwaves **ARE something** I DO use and something I feel is important that it is well utilized/managed. I *DO** choose to USE those airwaves, so, given the enjoyment and usefullness I've expereinced from using "those airwaves" over the years, I *DO** feel obliged to comment about issues regarding them at times in a public manner such as on this forum ....

How well "channel tuning works" for DTV viewers *IS* one of those issues, as there is absoltely *NO REASON* why it has to be a problem for folks ....

Given the nature of digital, will it ever be as "easy" and intutive as analog, no, probably not, which is EXACTLY WHY these issues such as not being able to decode PSIP until you get a "signal lock" begin to take on some importance .... The use of PSIP being of some "importance" for channel acquisition tuning as it is "apparent to the user", REALLY only makes the most sense only if we were using a system designed for use with ominidirectional (which probably means vertically polarized signals/vertically polarized "whip" antennas) antennas ....

Understanding and realizing the difficulties that have been involved for broadcasters regarding DTV transistion, I have at times went to quite a bit of effort(gladly) to support broadcasters efforts, and I've even HELPED them OUT from time to time when It's been possible, but at the end of the day they are MY airwaves as much as they are "the broadcasters", who are currently allowed the PRIVILAGE to broadcast there, and THAT CAN be revoked entirely for ALL broadcasters if need be ....

Desert Hawk

01-15-08, 05:14 AM

Nitewatchman

01-15-08, 06:23 AM

I was a bit surprised they will be using 7.1, will it be normal for most translators(repeaters?) to use the main analog channel as the virtual channel? I also wondered if all the translators will have the same TSID?

I don't have the LP DTV rules or a link to them handy at present, but IF I recall correctly(may not be) I think it's covered in the LP DTV R&O from 2004 (should be available on FCC's "DTV documents" webpage), so I think you should be able to find that info in there if noone else has that answer "handy" ....

I"m not sure if FCC has the TSID's listed anywhere on their website, but you can see what TSID's are assigned to(such as broadcast stations+their callsigns) via a lookup on this site, but you have input the TSID # in order for it to show you the station call letters/etc which are using that TSID .. You can get the TSID # as sent by the stations by using TSreader with a supported DTV tuner for PC's :

http://www.etherguidesystems.com/tools/tsidlookup.aspx

foxeng

01-15-08, 07:58 AM

I made one comment that I think that a station should be allowed to map to their actual RF channel if they want to (of course as long as no other station is already mapping to that number". I know that stations with low channel numbers that are staying on UHF RF channels will probably want to keep their low virtual channel numbers, and I am fine with that. KERO wants to map to their actual RF channel post transition. No other channel anywhere nearby maps to channel 10. What public interest is served by forcing them to map to 23-1 until the end of time? Why not let them?

Simply put, the FCC doesn't allow it and I have shown the documentation that proves that fact and in that documentation it explains why the FCC decided what they decided.

Now I personally don't care what KERO does. I have no dog in that fight, just stating what is fact. My personal feeling is analog branding isn't really needed, but no one asked me my opinion, I just have to deal with the results.

What I don't understand (and I am not angry about it as Nitewatchman thinks I am. I was going to respond to his diatribe but decided whatever I say to him on the subject isn't going to matter, he has made up his mind, so why waste my time and list resources, I have stated my position with supporting points facts, and so has he for his point of view. 'Nuff said on it) is why people continue to harp on the issue. Truth is, it isn't going to change (and that isn't just me talking either). The FCC has now twice confirmed the rule in two separate rulings. It will now take overwhelming evidence that just isn't there to get them to change their minds.

Truth is, several groups (ATSC, MATV, MASTV, FCC, CEA, etc) over the past 10 years have looked at the whole PSIP issue multiple times to come up with some conscience (meaning compromises were agreed upon for the good or bad of the issue) of how this should work. I am not saying it is perfect, it isn't. Point is, it wasn't created in a vacuum but by committee and all of the issues that come along with that form of decision making. Even 8VSB is a compromise format of 4 different digital formats (mostly of the "Zenith" format that LG holds the patent on), hence the early name of "Grand Alliance" format. But that is where we are and the snow ball has rolled too far for it stop or change direction now, for good or bad. So arguing about it on an Internet bulletin board might be great fun to some, in truth, it doesn't change a thing and to me is boring. You mileage may vary.

andy.s.lee

01-15-08, 08:06 AM

foxeng

01-15-08, 08:07 AM

I don't have the LP DTV rules or a link to them handy at present, but IF I recall correctly(may not be) I think it's covered in the LP DTV R&O from 2004 (should be available on FCC's "DTV documents" webpage), so I think you should be able to find that info in there if noone else has that answer "handy" ....

Some of it was covered in the Second DTV Review where they first said that translators COULD rebroadcast major/minor channel info from the master station as long as it didn't cause confusion. I think they have rethought that in the latest LPDTV proceeding that is before them to NOT do that and let each LPDTV provide their own unique major channel info. They do have to pass along the EPG from the master station. We will see what comes out of it when the FCC finally releases it.

I"m not sure if FCC has the TSID's listed anywhere on their website, but you can see what TSID's are assigned to(such as broadcast stations+their callsigns) via a lookup on this site, but you have input the TSID # in order for it to show you the station call letters/etc which are using that TSID .. You can get the TSID # as sent by the stations by using TSreader with a supported DTV tuner for PC's :

http://www.etherguidesystems.com/tools/tsidlookup.aspx

I do not believe the FCC has ever listed the TSIDs on their website because they didn't create it, just approved it. It was created by the ATSC and it is available from their website buried somewhere. I has never been easy to find there. I do have a copy of the PDF file at work if someone really wants to look at it.

foxeng

01-15-08, 08:17 AM

I think they will. KCSM-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCSM-TV) is a current example. They are on analog 60 and digital 43, yet allowed to send a virtual channel mapping of 43.1.

I guess my first question would be do you know it for a fact that the FCC allowed it or you think "they just did it." Many stations have just done it, without permission. Many not knowing any different. Sadly, the FCC hasn't really policed this very well.

This would be minor compared to KYES, Anchorage AK. That station doesn't operate on its assigned digital channel (6) but a UHF because the guy who owns the station had a UHF translator that he converted to digital and runs it from his house (to save money he says) and has been fighting the FCC for years to NOT use PSIP, of ANY kind including channel remapping, or EPG! The FCC has on several occasions ruled that he must run PSIP. To this day he hasn't implemented it and says he doesn't plan to. He also has a LPTV on channel 6 (which is why he doesn't want to use channel 6 for DTV) that he uses as a FM radio station and the FCC has busted him a couple of times for it. The guy is quite a character. He has chronicled his dealings with the FCC and his "DTV" station at http://kyes.info/dtv/ The FCC hasn't done anything about him. So just because they are doing it, doesn't mean they have permission.

In 2004 they were forced to abandon their high power analog facility on San Bruno Mountain (for cost reasons) and switch to a low powered transmitter at the San Mateo County Community College. This practically made their analog signal invisible to the world except for a small area around the campus.

Effectively, they are only visible OTA via their 536 KW digital transmitter on Mt. Sutro and hence they've been allowed to map to 43.1.

Best regards,
Andy

Being forced off of a site isn't reason enough, according to the FCC to cause that, but if they have permission, then fine. Good for them.

Nitewatchman

01-15-08, 02:04 PM

What I don't understand (and I am not angry about it as Nitewatchman thinks I am. I was going to respond to his diatribe but decided whatever I say to him on the subject isn't going to matter, he has made up his mind, so why waste my time and list resources, I have stated my position with supporting points facts, and so has he for his point of view. 'Nuff said on it) is why people continue to harp on the issue.

I'm not harping about anything and YOU KNOW IT. The only thing I am angry about is how you are playing games with my words and are twisting my words around to try to make them say something they didn't.

There was NOTHING that was inaccurate or misleading or "WRONG" or "harping" about about anything I said in my posts, there is no "posistion" about it, if your antenna is adjusted such that your receiver can't achieve a signal lock on some stations, you're not going to be able to to "tune" to the VCT major channel # and look at a signal meter/etc. to help you adjust your antenna for best results. That's AN ISSUE, and some folks will need to know the RF channel # and do "manual tuning" it's as simple as that.

YOU'RE the one blowing it and what I said out of porportion, not me.

If anyone doesn't believe that, I would suggest they go back and read my original post on this again ......

GeorgeLV

01-15-08, 02:11 PM

Nitewatchman

01-15-08, 02:16 PM

In theory every station has a unique TSID, in practice that's not the case. I know that according to TSReader, KVCW and KBLR were sending the same TSID for a while, which apparently caused some Dish Network receivers to load the KBLR guide date for both channels. (I'm guessing KVCW had an equipment failure so they borrowed something from KBLR.)

We had a situation like that involving E* as well a while back, which I happened to be working with the stations engineer's about (funny how I do things like this sometimes even though I don't sub to LiL via E* and therefore don't get the EPG info for the locals from the anyway, LOL) ....

In short+without going into too much detail, What happened in that case was One of the local digital stations was sending their analog TSID # on their digital station (the value for the digital was "+1" from that), and that "screwed up" the E* EPG for their program listing ....

chris_h2

01-16-08, 08:12 PM

Including me. I've been doing it since 2001. I didn't consider it a "hassle" to use the RF channel number before early 2004 for those stations in my area which were NOT sending *any* PSIP (about 1/2 of them weren't, more "earlier on") .. Actually, what I did back then was just turn PSIP remapping OFF on my DTC 100, and just used the RF channel for all of them ...

Nitewatchman,

Most of the time when I "hear" someone say "not sending any PSIP" I think that they mean "not sending any remap info within PSIP." But you seam pretty knowledgeable about ATSC and PSIP, so perhaps not. I never understood how it is possible to view a stream via ATSC if it does not have any PSIP data at all. How is this possible? It has been several years since I looked at the PSIP spec, but I thought that it had info in there about the stream and how to decode the packets, etc. If there was no PSIP data at all, it seems to me like there would be no audio or video at all. What am I missing here? Is there some sort of a default stream packetization defined?

Trip in VA

01-16-08, 09:32 PM

Nitewatchman,

Most of the time when I "hear" someone say "not sending any PSIP" I think that they mean "not sending any remap info within PSIP." But you seam pretty knowledgeable about ATSC and PSIP, so perhaps not. I never understood how it is possible to view a stream via ATSC if it does not have any PSIP data at all. How is this possible? It has been several years since I looked at the PSIP spec, but I thought that it had info in there about the stream and how to decode the packets, etc. If there was no PSIP data at all, it seems to me like there would be no audio or video at all. What am I missing here? Is there some sort of a default stream packetization defined?

Believe it or not, it is possible (from what I understand). For at least six months, WBRA-DT in Roanoke aired no PSIP. Most tuners would receive a video signal on 3-2 and with no audio. Some tuners didn't like it and wouldn't display anything, or would crash on the signal.

- Trip

foxeng

01-17-08, 07:50 AM

I never understood how it is possible to view a stream via ATSC if it does not have any PSIP data at all. How is this possible?

There was an unofficial standard on what element goes on one what PID. In the early PSIP spec, the spec called for programming stream 1 at PID HEX20 with the video on HEX21, and audio pair 1 on HEX24 and receivers were programmed to look there first if no PSIP were generated. Stations not adhering to that scheme and not sending PSIP would not decode correctly on receivers. This was one of the reasons in 2004 when the FCC came out and stated PSIP was not an option but a requirement. The spec was change to have the first program stream on HEX30 (video 31, audio 1 34). PID HEX00 through 2F was either reserved or had specific functions.

Very few receivers had the capability of turning off channel mapping like the RCA DTC-100. I know of none being produced today that does have that feature.

chris_h2

01-17-08, 11:14 AM

Trip & foxeng,

Interesting. Thanks for the info. This does roughly tranlate into my "default packetization" speculation.

Nitewatchman

01-17-08, 04:35 PM

I never understood how it is possible to view a stream via ATSC if it does not have any PSIP data at all. How is this possible? ....

Because PSIP is not needed for the receiver to be able to properly identify and decode the streams within an "ATSC compliant" MPEG2 transport stream ....

Until FCC began requiring stations to implement PSIP (at first a65/b version, now a 65/c), which they did in 2nd DTV review (the rule actually went into effect in spring 2005), many stations *did* send PSIP voluntarily, but many stations did not send it at all. In my area, some did not until spring 2005. This created problems for some receivers which were designed to "rely heavily" on the PSIP info(there are no required receiver performance standards for manufactuers to follow regarding this sort of thing, unfortunetly), and it also was confusing because on most receivers you would have some channels on their RF channels (MPEG2 program #'s for the streams-which are often but not allways "directly" related to the PID address depending upon equipment and "setup" at the station) instead of PSIP VCT minor channel #'s), and some on their "remapped" VCT channel #'s (same as their analog channel #, as is required now) ... The best way I had at the time to handle this on DTC-100 was to turn the PSIP "off" so I didn't "use" the PSIP from those stations that were sending it, and all stations "showed up" on their RF channel # ... That unfortunetly meant I also didn't get other actually useful PSIP info such as STT or EIT info (which at the time was no big deal, because stations were often sending incorrect STT or EIT info anyway, and unfortunetly concerning the latter, that is STILL sometimes the case ) ......

Certian MPEG2 PSI (program specific information) *is* needed ... such as PIDs(packet identifiers) so the receiver can identify the program streams[update], and/or, more concisely, which packet of data belongs to which stream[end update]. PAT (program association table) and PMT (program map table) are also MPEG2 PSI which are part of MPEG2 transport streams ...

If you are interested, You can learn more from the ATSC A53(there are portions of the A53 docs which go into a fair amount of detail about MPEG2/PSI and what it takes for a TS to be ATSC compliant - at least the versions of the documents I downloaded a couple of years ago did) and A65(PSIP) documents available on ATSC website ....

I thought that it had info in there about the stream and how to decode the packets, etc.

It does, but it's not PSIP .... It's MPEG2 PSI (program specific information) -- as I said above PIDS (packet identifiers) identify the streams and packet of data/associates each packet of data with the stream it "belongs" to .... update: note: sorry I'm being repetitive, just trying to answer your questions as you asked them ....

If there was no PSIP data at all, it seems to me like there would be no audio or video at all. What am I missing here? Is there some sort of a default stream packetization defined?

Again, MPEG2 PSI, or you could say, Transport stream "specific" info is needed (as described a bit above) for the receiver/decoder to identify the streams via the PID's mainly, but PAT/PMT are also used to identify and sort out which A/V stream goes "where"/belongs to which program service (such as via a station which is multicasting) ....

I'd have to go back and do some "studying" about the CC info, but if I recall correctly(and again I may not be), I believe PSIP may needed to implement EIA-708 ("digital" captions) properly ....

Nitewatchman

01-17-08, 04:45 PM

There was an unofficial standard on what element goes on one what PID. In the early PSIP spec, the spec called for programming stream 1 at PID HEX20 with the video on HEX21, and audio pair 1 on HEX24 and receivers were programmed to look there first if no PSIP were generated. Stations not adhering to that scheme and not sending PSIP would not decode correctly on receivers. This was one of the reasons in 2004 when the FCC came out and stated PSIP was not an option but a requirement. The spec was change to have the first program stream on HEX30 (video 31, audio 1 34). PID HEX00 through 2F was either reserved or had specific functions.

Accurate detailed information concerning the above can currently be found here :

http://www.atsc.org/pid_changeinfo.html

Note that PID's (packet identifiers) are not PSIP info .... It's MPEG2 specific info ...

Very few receivers had the capability of turning off channel mapping like the RCA DTC-100. I know of none being produced today that does have that feature.

DTC-100 is the only one I know of that has a "specific" menu option(turn on/off "off air guides", specifically) that allows you to turn it off, however, there are other receivers out there which can be "used" without it .... I can do it on the tuner internal to my sony KD34XBR960 HDTV, by tuning manually to the RF channel #/MPEG program number ... These can even be "added" into channel memory, and you'll only get the PSIP Major/Minor channel numbers if you do a "scan" ...

Also, certian Software I use with a ATSC receiver/DTV tuner card for PC doesn't "use" the PSIP info at all ... TSreader is one example(it "shows" what the station is sending PSIP wise, but does not use it for user accessable "tuning" purposes - You "punch in" the RF channel # - at least that is the case with ATSC BDA source drivers I'm using with my card), and for example, with "WatchHDTV" I can define whatever "channel numbers" I want to use ..

Desert Hawk

01-17-08, 07:33 PM

How does PSIP work on clear QAM cable? On Bright House Bakersfield, the 4 HD clear QAM channels have full PSIP. including virtual channel mapping (for example KGET NBC HD is RF channel 79-1, converter channel 43, and in clear QAM maps to 43-1), station ID, program information, etc. I used to get several SD clear QAM channels which became scrambled last October. These channels had no program information. They all scanned in on the RF channel number and the station ID would just say, for example, "RF115-5". I am guessing that this is what happens with digital channels that have no PSIP information whatsoever. On other forums here, some people keep saying that they can't get their local HD channels in clear QAM, yet others in the same city say that the channels are not scrambled. I have heard that some digital tv's can't lock onto any signal that has no PSIP data. Is this true?

Nitewatchman

01-17-08, 08:01 PM

How does PSIP work on clear QAM cable?

The same way it works for OTA, more or less, as long as the cableco sends the proper PSIP info, and the receiver is designed to properly implement PSIP, or at least in the "fashion" the cableco is sending it.

From what I have heard, Cableco's will often generate their "own" CVCT (cable virtual channel Table) in place of the TVCT(terrestrial virtual channel table) that the broadcaster is sending, but with (more or less) the same info ... In my area(involving TWC in Southwest Ohio/Cincinnati area), according to some info provided by a fellow with TSreader via QAM "captures", apparently without the service location descriptor in VCT which the broadccaster sends for some reason, although the rest of the VCT info is there ... In my area, the cableco's are also apparently stripping some of the other PSIP info out, in some cases replacing it with PSIP tables/info the Generate themselves, or just not providing it at all(such as some of the EIT info, apparently) ....

I used to get several SD clear QAM channels which became scrambled last October. These channels had no program information. They all scanned in on the RF channel number and the station ID would just say, for example, "RF115-5". I am guessing that this is what happens with digital channels that have no PSIP information whatsoever.

You guess correctly, and it works the same way OTA when stations aren't sending PSIP ... There are some slightly "different" requirements for PSIP for cable, basically, right now only cable systems with 750MHZ or greater capacity are required to provide PSIP, and in that case ONLY for digital broadcast signals ... Another little "oddity" is(unless something has changed since I last read either A65/B or A65/C documents) that the cableco isn't required to send service location descriptor in VCT, even if a broadcaster is providing it ....

update/correct this part : If a stream is encrypted, there should be a "conditional access descriptor" enabled for encryption(don't have info handy what the different possible values/etc. may be and what turns encryption "on") in the PMT(program map table) regardless of whether or not any PSIP is provided, and it may be in CAT (conditional access table) as well .... Something similiar called "ATSC redistribution control descriptor" is "broadcast flag" we've heard so much about, a couple of stations in my area with Harris Flexicoders still have it present in their PMT's, with a value of "FF" ...

Update 2: Oh yeah, almost forgot, Fox's HD encoder(or the "splicer setup") apparently send "ATSC redistribution control descriptor" (I.e. broadcast flag, but it's "inactive") as well, no apparent value assigned to it according to TSreader .... It's there from my local Fox digital affiliates when the Fox HD feed via the splicer is active, NOT there from them during local/syndicated programming ....

I have heard that some digital tv's can't lock onto any signal that has no PSIP data. Is this true?

Should not be true, but unfortunetly may be true in some cases, partly at least I'd guess probably due to different firmware/software designs regarding various "channel tuning/stream selection issues" as implemented in different receivers ....

Most of the reports I've seen however of QAM in the clear reception without the PSIP remapped channel #'s, involve QAM receivers which do NOT use the PSIP data sent via QAM(in some cases partially perhaps because of some of the PSIP being "changed" from the broadcaster is sending vs. what is sent via cable(such as service location descriptor not being present in VCT), or because the receiver may not support PSIP at all, or because the cableco isn't providing PSIP at all -- In those cases, the stations "show up" on the RF channel #(on the cable system) and MPEG program number being used... (such as say, 115-11 or something), just like for any other MPEG2 stream on the cable system ...

So, in otherwords, Most folks getting broadcasters signals via clear QAM cable w/o the PSIP(or with improper or imcomplete PSIP being supplied or not being "recognized" properly by the receiver) will see the RF channel numbers(on the cable system)+MPEG program numbers for the streams --

The PID's +MPEG2 program numbers will usually be renumbered from what the broadcaster(s) send because QAM256 has a datapayload that is ~2x as much as the data payload with ATSC 8VSB in a 6MHZ channel and cableco's typically "fit" 2 or 3 broadcaster's Transport streams in on one channel(and "into" one ~38.4Mb/s max transport stream), so the cableco must "re-Multiplex" streams from broadcasters into a "new" transport stream on any given channel, which may contain streams from 2 or more sources(stations/etc) .... Update: and of course, they're can't be "two TSID's" for one transport stream, so if there were "two" in there from the originating Transport streams from 2 broadcasters, there will only be One for the "new" Cableco transport stream ....

Update: it seems there are many possiblilites involved concerning what exactly may be happening when someone reports some channels "missing" via their in the clear QAM reception which should be there or used to be there/etc, whether or not PSIP is involved ....

coyoteaz

01-17-08, 11:37 PM

With regards to missing channels on clear QAM, some tuners, notably those in Samsung TVs, will not access any program not listed in a CVCT if there is a CVCT present on the channel. If the program is listed in the CVCT, or if there is no CVCT on the channel, it works fine. Samsung CSRs deny that such a problem exists and cable company CSRs wouldn't know a CVCT if it hit them in the face so it's not a fun situation to be in.

kb7oeb

01-18-08, 12:42 AM

I was surprised to find my newer ATSC receivers (TivoHD and Dish 622) can not tune a station with no PSIP but my older Samsung tuner had no trouble.

Trip in VA

01-18-08, 12:09 PM

My WinTV-D doesn't even read PSIP data as far as I can tell; it was one of the only tuners that got audio out of WBRA-DT before they started doing PSIP.

- Trip

Nitewatchman

01-18-08, 04:15 PM

Not that it matters now, but As I said earlier, roughly 1/2 of the stations in my area weren't sending any PSIP before Early 2005. I've been reading this forum since mid-2001, and at first that involved posts from folks reporting in my area as far back as 1999 or 2000, and I'm aware of no receivers owned by AVSforum members in my area(and I think the folks around here are/were using the same receivers as folks in VA area) which could not decode the streams properly from any of those stations which were not sending PSIP up until March 2005 .....

The only problem I can recall involving stations not sending PSIP that occured in my area was that folks using some D* receivers would get D* EPG info on say 7.1 when the RF channel # was 41 and the analog was 7 with the station not sending PSIP, but would only get a "blank screen" on 7.1 and would have to tune to 41.x to decode the streams ...

Currently, there is *one* station somewhat close to me that *IS* sending PSIP, but VCT major channel # is same as DTV RF channel # rather than their analog channel # ... AFAIK, I don't think they have any authorization to do that, in which case they would be in violation of FCC rules regarding this matter ..... will be interesting to see how long it lasts that way ...

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

Perhaps some more "on topic" comments and question -- I finally managed to read through the 3rd DTV review R&O a few days back -- It was probably "expected" by most I'd think, but nevertheless I found it interesting they are going to be relaxing interference protection standards for post transistion(such as for maximization/etc) significantly vs. what they did for channel election procedures ... I also found some of the text "interesting" concerning the "update" to now requiring PSIP ver. A65C vis A65B, specifically the portions of the text about the info provided in EIT's (EPG/program info) and desgination of "SD vs. HD" programming, and that the programming info must now be "accurate", descriptive and updated it seems pretty much in real time (such as if a NFL games "runs into" prime time schedule/etc) ... Seems to me that's asking an awfully lot, considering that for instance I have one Fox affilate here that for instance, had EIT's yesterday afternoon(thursday 1/17 when some "judge judy" type show was airing from Syndication) that said a Fox NFL football game was currently airing ...

Question is, Has anyone yet come across any 387 forms, or apps for CP's for post-transistion operation for stations which are moving yet on FCC website? I wonder if those are going to be publicly accessable anytime soon via TV query or CDBS ... A few stations in this area are moving to their current analog assignment, one with DTV out of core, and it will be espeically interesting to see how they do it given some of the options FCC is allowing per 3rd DTV review R&O, and also if any stations in area shut down analog early/etc .....

foxeng

01-18-08, 05:05 PM

Question is, Has anyone yet come across any 387 forms, or apps for CP's for post-transistion operation for stations which are moving yet on FCC website? I wonder if those are going to be publicly accessable anytime soon via TV query or CDBS ... A few stations in this area are moving to their current analog assignment, one with DTV out of core, and it will be espeically interesting to see how they do it given some of the options FCC is allowing per 3rd DTV review R&O, and also if any stations in area shut down analog early/etc .....

The filing window can't open until 30 days after the R&O is in the Public Registry. The forms should be available in early February.

dline

01-18-08, 05:11 PM

Question is, Has anyone yet come across any 387 forms, or apps for CP's for post-transistion operation for stations which are moving yet on FCC website? I wonder if those are going to be publicly accessable anytime soon via TV query or CDBS ...Hopefully this information will be coming soon. At this point, under "form number," they don't even have Form 387 listed. But stations have until Feb. 18 of this year to file them, and if my experience with the channel election forms is any indication, you probably won't see too many 387s much before that date.

Nitewatchman

01-18-08, 08:38 PM

The filing window can't open until 30 days after the R&O is in the Public Registry. The forms should be available in early February.

Thanks, I sometimes get confused about some of the dates involved -- I didn't read through every word of the R&O, but was wondering if they might have allowed something a little different for the Form 387 filings concerning the generally "usual" situation and "publication in federal register" given all stations must have them filed by feb 18,2008+the short period of time involved between when order was adopted and that date ...

Seems to me like quite a task ahead in a short amount of time for the stations that need to make changes, especially fairly major ones (get CP's, get tower work/etc. done) ....

I did see where it states in paragraph 185 specifically the "change" to PSIP A65C (compliance with A65B "version" was what was required) requirement goes into effect 120 days after publication of the new rule in Federal register ....

foxeng

01-18-08, 08:51 PM

Thanks, I sometimes get confused about some of the dates involved -- I didn't read through every word of the R&O, but was wondering if they might have allowed something a little different for the Form 387 filings concerning the generally "usual" situation and "publication in federal register" given all stations must have them filed by feb 18,2008+the short period of time involved between when order was adopted and that date ...

Yeah, any new federal law can't take effect until it has been listed in the Federal Registry for 30 days.

Seems to me like quite a task ahead in a short amount of time for the stations that need to make changes, especially fairly major ones (get CP's, get tower work/etc. done) ....

Yes it is. My station is going back to our analog channel so I read that section of the R&O very carefully. We are in better shape than many since we have the luxury of two complete facilities to broadcast from. While we are converting one, we run on the other one and can stay on analog until the last minute, something that I think we will have to do since we are the only station staying on our analog channel in my market. We are watching the window opening closely to have our stuff in for our CP.

I did see where it states in paragraph 185 specifically the "change" to PSIP A65C (compliance with A65B "version" was what was required) requirement goes into effect 120 days after publication of the new rule in Federal register ....

I have NO idea how anyone is suppose to do that. Most overuns happen on the weekend when you only have one person in the whole building and you never know how long an overrun will be. It looks like to me that networks will have be do better in scheduling or stations will have a cow.

phildaant

01-19-08, 01:40 PM

A few months ago, I was disappointed that the FCC did not put the call signs on their Full Power channel election spreadsheet.

I have developed an XL Spreadsheet which has the call signs in addition to other analysis. VHF-LO stations are color coded in red and VHF-HI stations are in yellow for easy reference.

On the 07-09 DTV tab, I have analyzed the movement of existing full power DTV stations. In summary, I have found the following:

Of the 33 DTV stations currently on VHF-LO

15 are remaining on VHF-LO (46%)
10 are moving to VHF-HI (30%)
8 are moving to UHF (24%)

Of the 161 DTV stations currently on VHF-HI

2 are moving to VHF-LO (1%)
156 are remaining on VHF-HI (97%)
3 are moving to UHF (2%)

Of the 1,360 DTV stations currently on core UHF 14-51

12 are moving to VHF-LO (1%)
202 are moving VHF-HI (15%)
1146 are staying on UHF (84%)

Of the 157 DTV stations currently on out of core UHF 52-69

5 are moving to VHF-LO (3%)
62 are moving to VHF-HI (39%)
90 are moving to UHF core (57%)

Thanks! Useful list.

Am I reading this XLS file correctly for Los Angeles, CA that I won't need to replace my a DB2 bowtie antenna (http://www.antennasdirect.com/DB2_Indoor_antenna.html )? Currently, I can get all digital channels fine (sometimes KTLA 5 gives low signals once in a while and I can't get it or get corruptions). For analog, channels 2-5 are bad, but everything else are fine (mostly clear).

For basic rabbit ears, I had to rotate and all that fun stuff since all channels aren't always clear. Even higher ones like KTTV11 and KCOP13 had problems. Although, I could get clearer pictures (not perfect) on channels 2-5 sometimes. Forget digital with rabbit ears, I rarely got anything. If I do get something, then it is not smooth. Hence, why I bought a bowtie antenna back in end of 2005.

COLUMNS: DMA L. City (if other) Call Sign Netw. NTSC 2007 DTV 2009 DTV
LOS ANGELES KCBS CBS 2 60 43
LOS ANGELES KNBC NBC 4 36 36
LOS ANGELES KTTV FOX 11 65 11
LOS ANGELES KTLA CW 5 31 31
LOS ANGELES KCOP MyN 13 66 13
LOS ANGELES KCAL ind. 9 43 9
LOS ANGELES KABC ABC 7 53 7
LOS ANGELES Long Beach KSCI ind. 18 61 18
LOS ANGELES KWHY ind. 22 42 42
LOS ANGELES SAN BERNARDINO KVCR PBS 24 26 26
LOS ANGELES KCET PBS 28 59 28
LOS ANGELES SAN BERNARDINO KPXN ion 30 38 38
LOS ANGELES KMEX uni 34 35 34
LOS ANGELES KTBN tbn 40 23 23
LOS ANGELES Rancho Palos Verdes KXLA ind. 44 51 51
LOS ANGELES ONTARIO KFTR tel 46 29 29
LOS ANGELES HUNTINGTON BEACH KOCE PBS 50 48 48
LOS ANGELES CORONA KVEA tel 52 39 39
LOS ANGELES Avalon KAZA azt 54 47 47
LOS ANGELES ANAHEIM KDOC ind. 56 32 32
LOS ANGELES VENTURA KJLA 57 49 49
LOS ANGELES KLCS PBS 58 41 41
LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE KRCA ind. 62 68 45
LOS ANGELES OXNARD KBEH 63 24 24

I don't see any numbers lower than 7 for 2009 DTV channel assignments (far right column).

Thank you in advance. :)

Falcon_77

01-19-08, 01:54 PM

Am I reading this XLS file correctly for Los Angeles, CA that I won't need to replace my a DB2 bowtie antenna (http://www.antennasdirect.com/DB2_Indoor_antenna.html )? Currently, I can get all digital channels fine (sometimes KTLA 5 gives low signals once in a while and I can't get it or get corruptions). For analog, channels 2-5 are bad, but everything else are fine (mostly clear).

It sounds like it may work in your case, but I doubt it will in mine (CM4220 actually). Please see my thread on this issue and let me know (on that thread) how your results compare, if you can. Thank you.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=979993

But yes, there won't be any full power Low-VHF DTV stations here for the foreseeable future. I hope it stays that way.

phildaant

01-19-08, 02:09 PM

It sounds like it may work in your case, but I doubt it will in mine (CM4220 actually). Please see my thread on this issue and let me know (on that thread) how your results compare, if you can. Thank you.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=979993

But yes, there won't be any full power Low-VHF DTV stations here for the foreseeable future. I hope it stays that way.Ouch. :( Your screen captures look horrible for analog feeds. I used to use rabbit ears and even higher ones had problems. Bowtie fixed that.

Falcon_77

01-21-08, 10:27 PM

This spreadsheet includes the following info for full power DTV stations:

Area, call sign, network, 2009 DTV channel, ERP & HAAT and other info

The default view is by # and then by 2009 channel number. This can be changed or filtered using the auto filter drop down arrows at the top. I have found that network affiliations change more often than I had thought, so some may still be out of date. An interesting note is the number of areas with only 1 Full Power VHF station. I have counted 35 in the top 150 that fit this description.

If any corrections are needed, please send me a private message. Thank you.

Granted Form 301's through 9/18/08 (commercial CP's)
Granted Form 340's through 9/18/08 (non-comm. CP's)
Filed Form 302-DTV's through 9/18/08 (licenses to cover)
Filed Form 387's through 9/18/08 (status reports)

Stations operating Post-Transition facilities: 962
Stations to end analog operations early: 107
Stations that have already ended (or will not commence) analog operations: 75

I have moved the spreadsheet to the following location on RabbitEars:

http://www.rabbitears.info/ss/

I am not planning to update this post after today. Please refer to the above link for future updates.

Thank you,

Nitewatchman

01-22-08, 02:16 PM

If I haven't already done so, thanks to Falcon 77 for the spreadsheet!

Just a thought, but perhaps sebenste may want to include a link to Falcon 77's spreadsheet in 1st post of this thread ...

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

One thing I found especially interesting while scrolling though the spreadsheet is how *few* markets will be UHF only for full service DTV after analog shut off ... I wonder if many of those relatively few markets that are UHF only for DTV(now or 2/18/09) will "end up" with any VHF LP or "new" VHF DTV stations "someday" ....

afiggatt

01-22-08, 04:07 PM

I have revised the spreadsheet that I posted earlier. The latest revision has every station assigned to a DMA. The default sort is by DMA and then by 2009 channel number.
Thanks for the revised version! Must have been a lot of work!

One idea occurred to me when I was using Excel to compute some stats on the previous version. Is there a list of stations that will have their analog channel or their current digital channel used by another station in their market or within the coverage range of their current broadcast? Strikes me that those stations may have to shut down their analog or in a few cases their current digital channel early in order to free up the frequency space so the other station can start up and check their digital broadcast antenna prior to Feb. 17, 2009?

For example, in the Washington-Baltimore market, WJZ-DT CBS 13 is moving from UHF 38 to VHF 13. WMAR-DT ABC 2 is moving from out-of-core UHF 52 to UHF 38 and I expect is taking over WJZ-DT's current digital transmitters and antenna. Since these stations are both on the same big tower in Baltimore, they may be able to do the big switch on the same day with advance work to be able to run WMAR-DT's signal to the WJZ-DT's current UHF 38 transmitter. Since these are both big four network stations in a top 30 DMA, they will likely work hard to keep the analog signals on the air as long as they can.

There is also WUTB-DT My 24 in Baltimore with the antenna located in Catonsville, MD which is staying on UHF 41 (which is still at STA power of 530 Watts, BTW). WNVC-DT MHz 56 in is currently on out of core UHF 57 with a side mounted antenna at low power, but will move to UHF 41 at 50 kW and from the height numbers, will be using an antenna on top of the tower. WNVC-DT's antenna is in Fairfax, VA, around 37 miles from the WUTB-DT antenna, so WNVC-DT can't go on the air at UHF 24 until WUTB-DT 24 vacates it's analog channel. I'll have to read the FCC document again, but can WNVC-DT 56 force WUTB-DT 24 to shut down it's analog broadcast early so WNVC-DT can fire up test broadcasts ahead of February 17?

I was looking at the spreadsheet and thinking one could write a macro to process the lat, longs, and channel #s to locate other stations within a range, say of 120 km (160 km?) that will have a final digital channel that conflicts with the current analog or digital channel of the station in question. Has anyone tried this? Or is there already a published list of stations that are facing this issue?

The question is not about stations moving their digital channel to their own current analog channel. How to handle that and when to do the switch is up to the station and whatever tower or antenna issues they have to deal with.

I think a list of stations with these transition conflicts might be interesting is this is where the transition process could get very sticky. Looking at the Washington-Baltimore stations, I see another one. WHAG-DT 25 in Hagerstown, MD will move from UHF 55 (at STA power) to UHF 26. However, this occupied by the analog channel for WETA-DT PBS 26 in Washington DC. Anyone have any comments on how this is going to play out?

Larry Kenney

01-23-08, 04:38 AM

... I think a list of stations with these transition conflicts might be interesting as this is where the transition process could get very sticky. ... Anyone have any comments on how this is going to play out?
I agree that this is going to be a very interesting year ahead watching all of the changes take effect. There's going to have to be a lot of coordination involved with the channel moves and the antenna changes.

Here in the San Francisco - Sacramento - Monterey area there are several stations moving their digital operation to an existing analog channel:
KTVU 2 now DT 56 is going to 44 now KBCW
KRON 4 now DT 57 is going to 38 now KCNS
KVIE 6 now DT 53 is going to 9 now KQED
KTNC 42 now DT 63 is going to 14 now KDTV
KFTY 50 now DT 54 is going to 32 now KMTP
KTFK 64 now DT 62 is going to 26 now KTSF

KGO 7, KSBW 8, KNTV 10, KQET 25, KICU 36 and KTXL 40 are moving their digital operation to their analog channel.

Several low power digital stations have CPs for channels being vacated.

No stations have yet to apply for channels 2 through 6 in this area.

For a look at the complete list of stations, post transition, for a 100 mile radius from San Francisco, take a look at the bottom of this page: http://www.choisser.com/sfonair.html

Larry
SF

foxeng

01-23-08, 07:51 AM

I think a list of stations with these transition conflicts might be interesting is this is where the transition process could get very sticky. ... Anyone have any comments on how this is going to play out?

The FCC stated in the 3rd DTV Review that it is the stations responsiblity to work out any issues of interference pre- or post transition and to co-ordinate with other stations to be sure the station was operating post transition facilities on Feb 18, 2009. if a station wasn't ready on Feb 18, 2009, the station would be off the air until they were ready. Not even an excuse of bad weather would be accepted. That excuse was used as one of the examples. The FCC is very serious on this issue. That is why the FCC has practically thrown out the rule book pre-transition to be sure stations are ready on Feb 18, 2009 and have stiff penalties for those who do not make the Feb 18, 2009 date.

The FCC also said they would allow stations to operate on their post transition facilities pre-transition as long as it didn't cause additional interference to already operating stations (analog or digital), including allowing lower power levels on post transition facilities pre-transition to be sure stations were ready for Feb 18, 2009. You will see some stations off air temporarily pre and post transition getting things ready to go. That is one of the reasons the FCC is being so lenient with the rules pre-transition.

My guess is you MIGHT see the FCC issue a waiver or two for a station or two to remain analog for a max of 6 months, but they would have to protect post transition facilities, If they still can't make it, then they are off the air until they do. In the FCC's own words, you are talking about a 9/11 type situation before the FCC would even entertain such a waiver.

Stations have been forewarned. If they snooze, they loose. What the FCC has put into motion with regard to the relaxation of the rules pre-transition is unprecedented and makes post transition analog waivers almost impossible, by design. It also puts a tremendous responsibility on stations to do the right thing. If broadcasters screw this up, I suspect, the industry will pay for it for years to come.

Scooper

01-24-08, 09:03 AM

I know this small potatoes compared to the broadcasters, but I wonder how many times we (the consumers/ viewers of OTA) are going to have to scan for the DTV stations in January and Febuary 2009 ? This is going to be dependent on how well the stations can coordinate all the shuffling, but I honestly expect to need to rescan 3-4 times for my 7 station market (it would not surprise if it's even more)... I would be pleasantly surprised if it's only once.

foxeng

01-24-08, 12:11 PM

sebenste

01-24-08, 01:13 PM

Looks like the FCC has issued an erratum to their 12/31/07 transition diatribe:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc07228err2.pdf

Most of it minor, it appears.

sebenste

01-24-08, 01:34 PM

Just a thought, but perhaps sebenste may want to include a link to Falcon 77's spreadsheet in 1st post of this thread ...

Good thought! And since the previous list was outdated, I replaced it with a link to this. Thanks, Falcon77!!!

Falcon_77

01-24-08, 02:54 PM

Looks like the FCC has issued an erratum to their 12/31/07 transition diatribe:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc07228err2.pdf

Most of it minor, it appears.

Thank you for the link.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't appear to have made any changes to the 2009 election table (appendix B of the 8/6/07 report).

Falcon_77

01-24-08, 03:20 PM

It is now listed as "in progress."

http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=73

I will be curious to see the results of this one. How long do they normally take?

A point I'm not clear on is what will happen to the low power and translator stations in the 52-69 band after 2/17/09. Will they need to vacate on 2/17/09 or will they have additional time like the ones in the core?

Scooper

01-24-08, 03:29 PM

In Raleigh, yeah, you will have to scan a few times to get everyone listed again. You have that 6 way swap going on there and that is going to be a mess!

Well - not TOO bad
WUNC 4 , current dig 59, going to 25 (has to be vacated by someone out of RDU)
WRAL 5 current dig 53, going to 48 (has to be vacated by an analog 48 out of market)
WTVD 11, current digital 52, going to 11 - no problem
WNCN 17, current digital 55, going to 17 - no problem
WLFL 22, current digital 57, going to 27, currently the Digital of 28
WRDC 28 current digital 27, going back to 28
22 and 28 are operated by Sinclair
WUNP 36, digital 39, going back to 36
some spanish station in Fayetteville 40, current dig 38, staying on 38
WRAY 30, dig 42, staying dig 42
WRAZ 50, dig 49, staying dig 49
ion 47, dig 15, staying 15
also another ion in Fayetteville 62, I don't know their digital assignment situation

Every so often, I can get other WUNC transmitters analog as well, I can't get any Greenville/points east, and I can usually get a fuzzy 2 out of Greensboro - can't receive their digital on 51.

I'm sure there are other messes like this.

Falcon_77

01-24-08, 04:05 PM

Looking at the Los Angeles DMA, it doesn't appear that we will have many issues like this.

8 stations are going to use their analog channel (4 VHF, 4 UHF).

16 stations are keeping their existing UHF assignment.

This leaves on 2 stations are moving to channels that they don't currently use:

KCBS 2/DT-60 is moving to 43, but they have common ownership with KCAL 9 which is vacating 43 to return to 9.

KRCA 68/DT-45 is moving to 45. The closest station I see there is a full power station in Bakersfield or a low power station in the Palm Springs area.

Trip in VA

01-24-08, 04:49 PM

Lemme clear up your list.

WUNC 4 , current dig 59, going to 25 (has to be vacated by someone out of RDU)
The someone is WUNU-31/25 in Lumberton, so it's co-owned.

WRAL 5 current dig 53, going to 48 (has to be vacated by an analog 48 out of market)
Also by WCTI-DT in New Bern, which is returning to channel 12.

WUNP 36, digital 39, going back to 36
I don't understand why, but, yes, this is correct.

some spanish station in Fayetteville 40, current dig 38, staying on 38
WUVC.

also another ion in Fayetteville 62, I don't know their digital assignment situation

WFPX-62/36, remaining on channel 36. This is why I was saying I didn't understand the WUNP move back to 36.

- Trip

Scooper

01-24-08, 05:59 PM

My guess on WUNP - their analog transmitter totally blocks WFPX ' digital one at my location - and the 2 transmitters are more than 100 miles apart (by my rough guess) - I could do some checking on that. - yep - my rough guess is correct - over 100 miles apart.

It would be intersting to see the interfernce at about half way between the 2 stations post D-Day. It would probably depend on which direction your antenna was pointing as to which one you would receive.

Nitewatchman

01-24-08, 06:08 PM

A point I'm not clear on is what will happen to the low power and translator stations in the 52-69 band after 2/17/09. Will they need to vacate on 2/17/09 or will they have additional time like the ones in the core?

I'm not sure how clear it is, and not sure if they changed anything regarding that since then, but for the most part They did cover this in detail in Section D., paragraphs paragraphs 59~81 of the LP DTV R&O from 2004, available here in PDF format :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-220A1.pdf

The way I read it, as of that order, basically It seems to say LP's(analog or digital) can stay on 52~59 post transistion as long as they don't interfere with new primary services, but they all have to be off ch 60~69 post transistion ....

I do know that in my area, most of the LPTV's+ translators that were on 52~69 have already moved to in core channels over the past couple of years, or Have CP's to do so. ... One LP translator on 66 has a analog CP for 22 to "repurpose" a Full service station's(which the same company also own - current ABC affiliate, full service analog station on 22) existing facilities in the same market for LP use --- I assume they're going to do that on or soon after feb 18, 2009 ....

foxeng

01-24-08, 06:47 PM

He is a suggestion to those who would be interested. You might want to start rolling tape on some of your analog stations in the next few months for your kids and/or grandkids of what analog looked and sounded like. Then roll tape when those same stations sign off analog for the last time, no matter when it is.

Also, it will be interesting to see at what time on Feb 17, 2009 the analogs sign off at. Some will during the day, others will wait until the last minute. The FCC stated in the 3rd DTV Review that stations analog licenses will expire at 11:59:59 pm on Feb 17, 2009. For those stations waiting until the last second, it will interesting to see them all go off within seconds of each other!!

Scooper

01-24-08, 07:18 PM

Do the stations even have an idea about what their plans for shutdown are at this point ? This is over a year away, so I would guess it hasn't been thought about too deeply yet.

Desert Hawk

01-24-08, 07:36 PM

sebenste

01-24-08, 07:46 PM

http://www.news.com/Wireless-auction-opens-with-2.4-billion-bid-total/2100-1039_3-6227549.html?tag=nefd.to
p

Wireless Auction Opens with $2.4 billion Bid Total

By Reuters

Story last modified Thu Jan 24 12:18:18 PST 2008

Top bidders put up a total of more than $2.4 billion on Thursday in the opening round of the Federal
Communications Commission's auction of coveted U.S. government-owned airwaves.

The figure represents the highest bids received for five separate blocks of spectrum at the beginning of
the auction, which is eventually expected to net the federal government at least $10 billion.

Companies qualified to bid include major carriers AT&T and Verizon Wireless, as well as possible new
competitors like Internet company Google, EchoStar Communications, and Cablevision Systems. Verizon
Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group.

Under FCC rules, identities of bidders will be kept secret until the entire auction ends.

Analysts say the major carriers could use the new spectrum to offer consumers more advanced services such
as broadband access via mobile phones and wireless broadband to laptop computers.

The $2.4 billion worth of opening high bids included a $472 million offer for a closely watched block of
spectrum, known as the "D" block, which will have to be shared with public safety agencies under FCC
rules.
----
Rest of the article can be found at the link above.

Falcon_77

01-24-08, 08:23 PM

http://www.news.com/Wireless-auction-opens-with-2.4-billion-bid-total/2100-1039_3-6227549.html?tag=nefd.to

Are they are talking about VHF? ;)

The 700-megahertz signals are valuable because they can go long distances and penetrate thick walls. The airwaves are being returned by television broadcasters as they move to digital from analog signals in early 2009.

TV channels 52-69 aren't particularly effective at penetrating thick walls, etc. But then, I suppose they are... relative to current cell phone frequencies.

Falcon_77

01-24-08, 08:42 PM

jtbell

01-25-08, 07:48 AM

Most stations start their "broadcast day" at 5am. It would make sense to allow stations to shut off their analog broadcasts (and old channel digital broadcasts where applicable) sometime in the early morning hours like 2am-4am and fire up their new digital signal before the 5am news.

I suspect a lot of stations will do that on the morning of February 17, i.e. about 20 hours before the actual deadline.

foxeng

01-25-08, 08:37 AM

Do the stations even have an idea about what their plans for shutdown are at this point ?

Yes and I am sure the FCC will publish them since all stations have to have their plans in to the FCC by Feb 18, 2008.

foxeng

01-25-08, 08:45 AM

I still think the midnight thing is stupid. Most stations start their "broadcast day" at 5am. It would make sense to allow stations to shut off their analog broadcasts (and old channel digital broadcasts where applicable) sometime in the early morning hours like 2am-4am and fire up their new digital signal before the 5am news. It would make it easy for everybody if all stations did this the morning of 2-18. England, which is shutting off analog one region at a time, wisely moved cutoof time from midnight to 4am.

The FCC is actually asking stations to please not wait until the last minute (they are hinting for stations to start this summer if they can shut analog down), but for a station that is staying on its digital channel and is just just shutting down an analog transmitter, then why not wait until the last possible moment? After that, the analog transmitter and associated equipment will be useless.

The vast majority of viewers will not even know when it happens since the MSOs will start to carry the digital stations before the analog shutdown. For those stations changing channels, they will have to be in coordination with the MSOs on when they will change channels and the OTA only people will have been notified beginning 30 days ahead of the change, per FCC rules from the 3rd DTV Review.

I don't think it is going to be as big a deal as some here think. Just don't be rolling your tapes via an MSO or you might miss the sign off!

foxeng

01-25-08, 09:02 AM

I have been thinking that while every Full Power station will need to turn off analog on 2/17/09, it only applies for the US based stations does it not? Is Fox 6 in San Diego (XETV) under any obligation to turn off its analog signal?

Not on Feb 18, 2009.

XETV is currently broadcasting on 6 for analog and on 23 for DTV, so I would assume they will keep both if they can. As Mexico isn't scheduled to turn off analog until ~2022, can XETV continue its analog broadcasts until then?

Yes, if that is what the Mexican government says.

Also, XETV has to get permission from the FCC yearly to broadcast FOX. The microwave system that feeds the transmitter has to be US licensed since it radiates from the US side of the border and is under US rules. There is also some kind of Mexican permission has to be secured for that microwave signal to cross the border to a Mexican receive site (fixed point to point). But the on air rules of XETV are Mexican since that is where the transmitter is licensed. It is like the cruise ships. They are owned by American companies but are registered in places like Liberia and are considered sovereign soil of the registered country and so are under that countries laws, not the US.

Of course, the big difference is, the cruise lines do it for tax purposes and the relaxed maritime rules where with XETV, it is just that happens to be where they could put a TV station that servers San Diego.

Are there any other major US network TV stations broadcasting into the US from outside the US?

I was trying to remember off the top of my head (never a good thing to do) and I want to say yes there is one other, but I can't remember where. (edit - you found it!) I thought I heard several years ago that some small US stations along the TX border aired TV Azteca, the Mexican network version, not the version that you see on other US TV stations. Don't know if that was true or not.

An interesting tidbit I found from XETV's Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XETV):

18 minutes per hour? IONfomercial wouldn't last long at that rate.

XETV has been around for years and I have seen in the trades where they show regular US syndicated programming as well as they have a full news programming slate. Check out http://www.fox6.com for their very nice website. From their website, here is their full programming line up for today (I see no infomercials listed for the whole day):

12:00a - 12:30a South Park
12:30a - 1:00a South Park
1:00a - 1:30a Reno 911
1:30a - 2:00a Reno 911
5:00a - 5:30a Fox6 News At 5Am
5:30a - 6:00a Fox6 News At 5:30Am
6:00a - 7:00a Fox6 News At 6Am
7:00a - 9:00a Fox In The Morning
9:00a - 10:00a San Diego Living
10:00a - 11:00a 700 Club
11:00a - 11:30a Still Standing
11:30a - 12:00p Still Standing
12:00p - 12:30p Cops
12:30p - 1:00p Cops - Coast To Coast
1:00p - 1:30p Temptation
1:30p - 2:00p Temptation
2:00p - 2:30p Cristina's Court
2:30p - 3:00p Cristina's Court
3:00p - 3:30p Judge David Young
3:30p - 4:00p Judge David Young
4:00p - 4:30p King Of The Hill - Hank's Dirty Laundry (Hank Vehemently Protests When A Video Store Accuses Him Of Not Returning An Adult Film.)
4:30p - 5:00p King Of The Hill - Full Metal Dust Jacket (Peggy Opens Her Own Bookstore, But When She Discovers That Customers Are Nonexistent, She Reluctantly Allows Dale To Sublet Space So He Can Sell Guns)
5:00p - 5:30p Frasier
5:30p - 6:00p Frasier
6:00p - 6:30p That 70'S Show - On With The Show
6:30p - 7:00p That 70'S Show (Double-Run & Weekend)
7:00p - 7:30p The Simpsons - Crook And Ladder
7:30p - 8:00p The Simpsons - Way We Weren't, The (Homer Reveals That Marge Wasn't The First Girl He Ever Kissed, But As He And Marge Recount Their Versions Of Time Spent At A Summer Camp, Homer Realizes He Caused Marge Thirty Years Of Heartbreak.)
8:00p - 9:00p Bones
9:00p - 10:00p House
10:00p - 11:00p Fox6 News At 10Pm
11:00p - 11:30p Seinfeld - The Lip Reader
11:30p - 12:00a Seinfeld - The Note

Edit: It looks like XHRIO - (Fox RIO 2) in Brownsville, TX is in the same boat and that they can both continue analog broadcasts at will.

Falcon_77

01-25-08, 10:07 AM

18 minutes per hour? IONfomercial wouldn't last long at that rate.

I meant the ION network TV stations, which seem to show nothing but infomercials on the off hours:

http://www.ionline.tv/schedule.php

Click the "previous 3 hours" button to see the "paid programming listings."

I watch XETV Fox 6 when I visit my parents in San Diego every few weekends or so. It will be interesting to see that as the only local English station on analog next year.

foxeng

01-25-08, 03:22 PM

Study Shows Most OTA TV Households Will Stick with Antennas After Analog Ends

January 25, 2008

A study has been conducted by the Association of Public Television Stations to determine what off-air TV viewers will do after analog broadcasting ends. The results show that they would opt to receive free off-air digital TV, using either set-top DTV converters or by purchasing a new set with a DTV tuner, rather than switching to cable or satellite services. The margin was more than three to one, with 43 percent indicating they would stick with off-air television delivery, and 12 percent saying that they would sign up for cable or satellite.

"This data indicates that free, over-the-air television may be set for a big comeback," said John Lawson, APTS president and CEO. "Many people see broadcasting as a dinosaur technology, but we broadcasters have the opportunity to reposition it as 'wireless TV' and reach new audiences."

The remaining households either didn't know the steps they would take (25 percent) or said they would do nothing (19 percent). Of the group that said they would do nothing, 17.6 percent said they would postpone or wait before they take any action, if they do anything at all.

The survey found that 77 percent of those surveyed who were aware of the transition didn't know why the Federal government had ordered it. The APTS survey found only 18.7 percent of the respondents thought the government was on the "right track" with the transition.

The study results are based on a Nov. 2007 survey of 1,153 households conducted by research firm Centris, which is based in Fort Washington, Pa.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0115/t.10916.html

Desert Hawk

01-25-08, 07:30 PM

"They are hinting for stations to start this summer if they can shut analog down"? I thought stations were not allowed to shut down analog until January 18 2009 at the earliest, unless they get special permission from the FCC. I read on here that KJLA 57 in Los Angeles asked for permission to shut down their analog transmitter about a year ago simply because they were tired of paying the electric bill for it, and the FCC said no, you must keep transmitting in both analog and digital until 2009. I also read that some PBS station somewhere's very old analog transmitter died, and the FCC gave them permission to go digital only then, instead of having to spend over $1 million on a new analog transmitter that they would only get 2 years use out of.

It would be easier for OTA antenna users if all stations that are switching channels did it at the same time. That way people wouldn't need to do the "3-4 rescans". It would also make things easier for cable technicians, since they will have to make changes to their reception/retransmission setup. I'm sure they would rather do it all on one night than at different times for different channels.

dline

01-25-08, 09:02 PM

It would be easier for OTA antenna users if all stations that are switching channels did it at the same time. That way people wouldn't need to do the "3-4 rescans". It would also make things easier for cable technicians, since they will have to make changes to their reception/retransmission setup. I'm sure they would rather do it all on one night than at different times for different channels.I'm inclined to think that if the switch is going to result in a day of inconveniences -- well, we've had many of those this winter affecting things far beyond my TV reception. We'll know more about the plans when the Form 387s start rolling in, and I'm sure the stations will be making their own announcements on-air and on the web, since their business depends on us being able to get them. But it'll be far less inconvenient than, say, your typical snowstorm. Heck, if you're so inclined, you could walk down to the bar that night, toast the end of analog, do your re-scan when you get home after last call, and you'll be fine (as long as you don't toast too much). ;)

Nitewatchman

01-25-08, 09:42 PM

Personally I just want it to be done and over with so we can "move on" so to speak ... For that matter, If transmitters for the analogs break down tomorrow and "dont get fixed", it's fine with me, .... But yeah, I'll be looking for "special" sign-off messages to archive for nostalgia's sake ....

We'll know more about the plans when the Form 387s start rolling in,

Here is what the Form 387 looks like, little easier to look at in this "version" than the info on it in Appendix C of 3rd DTV review, and the instructions are included here as well :

http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form387/387_view.pdf

This is shown in Appendix C of the R&O, regarding an earlier comment of mine on this, I missed this when I first read it :

"Note: this Form will be posted on www.fcc.gov and www.dtv.gov."

Also, in the form instructions on form itself , on page 1 it says :

"F. The data collected by these forms will be made available
to the public on the Commission’s Web Site:
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv, allowing the Commission,
industry, and the public to track the progress of the DTV transition."

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

I think that's interesting, as usually this sort of thing (such as the "ancillary fees" forms, or any other broadcast application) shows up only in CDBS (also accesable to public) ...

foxeng

01-26-08, 12:39 AM

"They are hinting for stations to start this summer if they can shut analog down"? I thought stations were not allowed to shut down analog until January 18 2009 at the earliest, unless they get special permission from the FCC.

As of the DTV 3rd Review that view has now changed. The FCC sees the need to get this done and now. If a station has their post transition facilities ready to go, after August, the FCC will look favorably to a station signing analog off early as long as the post facilities will not increase interference to existing operating analog and digital stations after apply to the FCC and giving a 30 day notice on air about the station shutting down analog.

It would be easier for OTA antenna users if all stations that are switching channels did it at the same time.

It might be easier but it isn't practical. As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. You do have some markets where every station is doing something and getting other stations channels and such and it is a domino effect and no one can start until the first station starts. It can be VERY complicated. My station has had a plan for 5 years on how we would do the transition. It was a frame work with no real meat on the bones. With the DTV 3rd Review, we now know what the FCC expects us to do and we can now flesh out the details. What looked to be very simple, now has some bumps in the road we hadn't expected so to say that we will turn off analog and turn on digital is an over simplification. Yes, that is what we will be doing, but the how of doing it is the issue at this point. Sounds simple, but the "how do you actually do it" is a different thing all together. I wish I could go into details, but I can only talk in generalities of what is in the public domain at this point in time.

foxeng

01-26-08, 12:45 AM

I'm inclined to think that if the switch is going to result in a day of inconveniences -- well, we've had many of those this winter affecting things far beyond my TV reception. We'll know more about the plans when the Form 387s start rolling in, and I'm sure the stations will be making their own announcements on-air and on the web, since their business depends on us being able to get them. But it'll be far less inconvenient than, say, your typical snowstorm. Heck, if you're so inclined, you could walk down to the bar that night, toast the end of analog, do your re-scan when you get home after last call, and you'll be fine (as long as you don't toast too much). ;)

But that is just it, it will not be just one day, but over a 6 month period of time and as I pointed out in my post above, the actual work is more complicated than just turning off one transmitter. I wish it were that simple.

sebenste

01-26-08, 12:58 AM

kb7oeb

01-26-08, 04:20 AM

That XETV schedule has a 3 hour gap from 2 to 5 am presumably filled with ads.

dline

01-26-08, 06:32 AM

There's also a third: Channel 13, TV Marti from south Florida (Miami? Key West)? Got the OK this past fall to continue right on with their analog broadcast through the end of 2009.I guess that's because Castro isn't interested in starting up a converter box program so his people can keep getting it.:D

foxeng

01-26-08, 10:47 AM

There's also a third: Channel 13, TV Marti from south Florida (Miami? Key West)? Got the OK this past fall to continue right on with their analog broadcast through the end of 2009.

TV Marti isn't licensed by the FCC and doesn't show up in the FCC database. TV Marti is operated by NTIA under Presidential order approved by Congressional funding. In a nutshell it is an agreement that the FCC will not issue a license to a broadcaster on channel 13 in the south Florida area (which I think the actual tethered balloon transmission location is classified but the rumor is down in the Keys as close to Cuba as they can get) and will allow NTIA to do what they want, within certain bounders. TV Marti isn't covered by the DTV Transition because it isn't an FCC licensed facility. The FCC has nothing to do with it other than acknowledging its existence and their "hands off" of it.

Remember, FCC controls spectrum for the public and NTIA controls spectrum for the Federal government and TV Marti, like Radio Marti are US government projects and don't fall under FCC rules. And yes, both agencies do butt heads at times because of their similar nature serving two different masters. If NTIA sounds familiar, it is because that is the government agency that is handling the converter box coupons.

I have seen the FCC "letter of authorization" (and that is being generous and it has to be "renewed" every year) since it is public record. But the actual parameters are "classified" except channel number but the signal is directional towards Cuba. An interesting document.

I know for a while Radio Marti was actually operated at night on a daytime directional AM commercial station in south Florida where the pattern of the station was changed at night to send the signal to Cuba. In retaliation, Castro jammed many AM signals. When a Radio Marti transmitter facility was built in south Florida somewhere, and the government stopped using the commercial AM station, the widespread jamming stopped and then became localized to that one frequency. This all happened in the early to mid 80's.

sebenste

01-26-08, 01:59 PM

TV Marti isn't licensed by the FCC and doesn't show up in the FCC database. TV Marti is operated by NTIA under Presidential order approved by Congressional funding. In a nutshell it is an agreement that the FCC will not issue a license to a broadcaster on channel 13 in the south Florida area (which I think the actual tethered balloon transmission location is classified but the rumor is down in the Keys as close to Cuba as they can get) and will allow NTIA to do what they want, within certain bounders. TV Marti isn't covered by the DTV Transition because it isn't an FCC licensed facility. The FCC has nothing to do with it other than acknowledging its existence and their "hands off" of it.

Remember, FCC controls spectrum for the public and NTIA controls spectrum for the Federal government and TV Marti, like Radio Marti are US government projects and don't fall under FCC rules. And yes, both agencies do butt heads at times because of their similar nature serving two different masters. If NTIA sounds familiar, it is because that is the government agency that is handling the converter box coupons.

I have seen the FCC "letter of authorization" (and that is being generous and it has to be "renewed" every year) since it is public record. But the actual parameters are "classified" except channel number but the signal is directional towards Cuba. An interesting document.

I know for a while Radio Marti was actually operated at night on a daytime directional AM commercial station in south Florida where the pattern of the station was changed at night to send the signal to Cuba. In retaliation, Castro jammed many AM signals. When a Radio Marti transmitter facility was built in south Florida somewhere, and the government stopped using the commercial AM station, the widespread jamming stopped and then became localized to that one frequency. This all happened in the early to mid 80's.

Fox,

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow! Thanks for clearing all of that up!

I read that TV Marti document and the "approval", and yes, it is interesting...and it was weird because yes, it's not in the FCC database and yes, a lot of stuff is missing in there.

Tethered balloon? Wow, didn't know that. How do they get 100 kw or whatever they run up that thing? And why is it such a secret? I mean, floating a 500' or whatever balloon into the air isn't exactly stealth. :D And powering that from a ship has to be tough. Or if from a land source, given that it's 90 miles away, that balloon HAS to be way up there. And how do you keep a directional antenna stable in the wind, or during a tropical storm/hurricane?

And yes, I remember, growing up onthe near southeast suburbs of Chicago, 25 air miles from WGN and WMAQ radio, and even less for WLS, hearing Cuban music under their stations; I think I could null out one of them and get a good signal from Radio Cuba. I remember that WHO-AM from Des Moines was just annhilated. Darn capitalist swill from Iowa! Out to conquer the planet, they are! :D

So why does the NTIA do this? You are right, the FCC/NTIA do the same jobs, except the NTIA's are, I presume, classified. I guess they're afraid the FCC will let the cat out of the bag on these stealth operations, and they are told on a "need to know" basis like TV Marti. Besides them, are there any others within the U.S. that won't be shutting off that you or anyone else know of?

And how can you keep a high-powered channel 13 signal a secret? Just use a hyper-directional antenna and when you get a great signal, boom! Look that way from the shore. :D Can you even get it in the keys or Miami?

foxeng

01-26-08, 02:44 PM

Fox,

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow! Thanks for clearing all of that up!

I read that TV Marti document and the "approval", and yes, it is interesting...and it was weird because yes, it's not in the FCC database and yes, a lot of stuff is missing in there.

Tethered balloon? Wow, didn't know that. How do they get 100 kw or whatever they run up that thing? And why is it such a secret? I mean, floating a 500' or whatever balloon into the air isn't exactly stealth. :D And powering that from a ship has to be tough. Or if from a land source, given that it's 90 miles away, that balloon HAS to be way up there. And how do you keep a directional antenna stable in the wind, or during a tropical storm/hurricane?

And yes, I remember, growing up onthe near southeast suburbs of Chicago, 25 air miles from WGN and WMAQ radio, and even less for WLS, hearing Cuban music under their stations; I think I could null out one of them and get a good signal from Radio Cuba. I remember that WHO-AM from Des Moines was just annhilated. Darn capitalist swill from Iowa! Out to conquer the planet, they are! :D

So why does the NTIA do this? You are right, the FCC/NTIA do the same jobs, except the NTIA's are, I presume, classified. I guess they're afraid the FCC will let the cat out of the bag on these stealth operations, and they are told on a "need to know" basis like TV Marti. Besides them, are there any others within the U.S. that won't be shutting off that you or anyone else know of?

And how can you keep a high-powered channel 13 signal a secret? Just use a hyper-directional antenna and when you get a great signal, boom! Look that way from the shore. :D Can you even get it in the keys or Miami?

I was told by someone that the balloon was actually two balloons with small engines on them for steering tethered together off of one down lead about 200 feet up (over water you can go farther with less height) and weather conditions played a part in when it got used. Now I have no idea if that is true or not. I also heard they later added an aircraft to transmit into Cuba since the balloon was too far away. Now that makes sense. You can easily put a solid state transmitter of a kilowatt or better, fly off the coast of Cuba with a gain directional antenna that keeps its beam toward a certain spot on the Earth by using GPS based steering equipment. TV choppers use a similiar system today to keep their microwave antennas pointed at the receive site. I really think the balloon thing was a temperary thing to get it going, as was the use of the daytime AM station at night. But who really knows. It is all black ops and I am sure the CIA has some hand in it as well. (Yeah, I know, "conspiracy!" I am just wired that way!! :D )

As far as why the FCC just doesn't do it all, it has to do with the magnatude of the task at hand. Those huge swaths of "unused" spectrum is really used by the military, and other government agencies and a database record has to be kept on what is on what and where. It is huge job. The shear number of RF radiators on a government facility, military or not is mind boggling. The FCC is doing all it can just to keep up with the public sector and all of the new requests for spectrum to try this new gizmo or that new gadget. It seems everything takes spectrum these days. The number of "experimental" licenses that the FCC processes in a month is mind blowing for everything from container inventory to medical equipment.

Living in southeastern North Carolina in the early to mid 80's working in radio and working the night shift, the big thing was to get off work at midnight. Get home and turn on the radio and listen to WLS to steal bits and stuff from the over night jocks, Brant Miller and later Tury Rider and finally Unka Lar and then go to bed as the sun was rising and WLS was fading out. Yeah, the Cubans were there, some nights worse than others, and they were there for years. Never stopped us from listening though!!

foxeng

01-26-08, 03:22 PM

For those interested, here is the latest TV Marti "authorization." Also notice that it is concerned with interference to FCC licensed facilities and no one else and because it is consider a "security issue" no public comment was asked for or considered!! :D

Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2724
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the matter of Request of
Broadcasting Board of Governors
United States of America
For Extension of Authorization
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: June 21, 2007 Released: June 21, 2007
By the Chief, International Bureau:
1. This Order addresses a request by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) that the
Commission extend for one year the authorization for TV Marti to operate Channel 13 facilities with
technical parameters at variance from those that the Commission originally authorized. 1 The
Commission originally granted to the United States Information Agency (USIA) authorization to use
Channel 13 for TV Marti facilities to broadcast television programming to Cuba.2 Thereafter, BBG
became responsible for TV Marti, and on August 19, 2004, the Commission adopted the Modification
Order that amended the allocation of Channel 13 to BBG.3 The Modification Order also authorized TV
Marti to operate Channel 13 facilities with technical parameters at variance from those that the
Commission had previously authorized.4 On January 23, 2006, the International Bureau granted an
extension for one year from January 24, 2006 to January 24, 2007.5 BBG now requests an additional one
year extension.6 As discussed below, we grant the request, subject to conditions to ensure the TV Marti
facilities do not cause harmful interference to Commission licensees.

1 Letter from Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors, United States of America, to
Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated January 22, 2007 (BBG Letter).
2 Request of United States Information Agency, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 1714 (1991), as
modified by Letter of Roy J. Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau, to Joe Bruns, Acting Director, Voice of America,
dated July 26, 1993, and subsequently modified in Request of United States Information Agency, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4514 (1995).
3 Request of United States Department of State for Modification of Authorization, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
19 FCC Rcd 16259 (2004) (Modification Order).
4 Id.
5 Request of Broadcasting Board of Governors United States of America for Extension of Authorization,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 456 (2006) (Extension Order).
6 BBG Letter.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2724
2
2. Consistent with the Commission’s previous orders, we have evaluated BBG’s request to extend
authorization of the modified facilities for one year, and find that BBG’s operations comply with the
Modification Order.7 In accordance with the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act8, and in recognition of
the foreign policy interests noted by BBG, we grant BBG’s request and allow TV Marti to continue to
operate Channel 13 facilities with technical parameters at variance from those the Commission previously
authorized. This authorization is subject to the same conditions enumerated in the Modification Order.9
3. As this change to the TV Marti authorization carries out the mandate of the Television
Broadcasting to Cuba Act, and reflects foreign policy determinations made by Congress and the President
of the United States, we find for good cause that public notice and comment thereon is unnecessary.10
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that TV Marti may operate Channel 13 television facilities with
technical parameters at variance from those previously authorized by the Commission. Such operations
shall be permitted until January 24, 2008.11
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TV Marti’s operations on Channel 13 be on a non-interference
basis. Such operations must cease if the Commission determines that they are causing harmful
interference to any lawfully operating Commission licensee.
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be effective immediately upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Helen Domenici
Chief
International Bureau

7 See Modification Order; Request of Broadcasting Board of Governors United States of America for Extension of
Authorization, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 16259 (2005) and 21 FCC Rcd 456 (2006).
8 22 U.S.C. §1465bb(d)(1). Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act, in Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1990 and 1991, Part D of Title II, Pub. L. No. 101-246 Stat. 58, Section 242(3).
9 Modification Order at 16260.
10 See 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1), (b)(3)(B).
11 BBG’s extension request was timely filed on January 22, 2007 and we grant BBG’s request for the extension of
time requested, that is until, January 24, 2008. The timely filing of the extension request permitted continued
operation up until the present time pending Commission action on the extension, consistent with Commission
practice and policy.