The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread [Text View] - Page 22

dline

11-03-09, 05:28 PM

The FCC published Commissioner Copps' full statement here today:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294450A1.pdf

There are many important issues pending before the FCC. In long-term importance, none exceeds—and I don’t think any matches—the future of our media environment. If we can’t fix what’s broken, if we can’t rejuvenate broadcast journalism, reopen shuttered newsrooms, put the brakes on mind-numbing monoprogramming, stop the dumbing-down of our civic dialogue and take advantage of the great potential of local broadcasting, then maybe those who want that spectrum back have the better of the argument. Time will tell.

Of course I fail to see how getting rid of "mind-numbing" local stations and replacing them with "mind-numbing" national cable stations would "stop the dumbing-down of our civic dialogue." Judging from how cable news networks often behave these days, prepare for it to just get dumb and dumber.

BCF68

11-03-09, 06:25 PM

The FCC published Commissioner Copps' full statement here today:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294450A1.pdf

Of course I fail to see how getting rid of "mind-numbing" local stations and replacing them with "mind-numbing" national cable stations would "stop the dumbing-down of our civic dialogue." Judging from how cable news networks often behave these days, prepare for it to just get dumb and dumber.

Perhaps someone needs to remind the commissioner that the airwaves belong to the PEOPLE.

narkspud

11-03-09, 07:03 PM

Perhaps someone needs to remind the commissioner that the airwaves belong to the PEOPLE.

And the PEOPLE are switching to ONLINE, pops. ;)

Trip in VA

11-03-09, 07:33 PM

And the PEOPLE are switching to ONLINE, pops. ;)

Where online is available, perhaps. Even then, online is not nearly as efficient.

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-03-09, 07:48 PM

Add another VHF Nightmare, the Phoenix thread says that KSAZ is now available in SD on KUTP 45-2.

- Trip

ziggy29

11-03-09, 07:59 PM

And the PEOPLE are switching to ONLINE, pops. ;)
At a price. That's going to be a big part of the resistance: replacing FREE airwaves with airwaves we have to pay for.

BCF68

11-03-09, 08:19 PM

And the PEOPLE are switching to ONLINE, pops. ;)

well sonny regaurdless they airwaves still belong to the people. As in ME. Where my check for the $20 bil they government made off the last auction?

Oh by the way tell my good friend that lives 5 miles away from me that has no access to broadband about how he is switching to online.

Trip in VA

11-03-09, 09:17 PM

The only good thing about all this talk of stealing broadcasters' bandwidth is that I have to imagine it makes white space folks think twice.

- Trip

sebenste

11-04-09, 02:04 AM

I have a scoop for Trip here...

In Chicago, WLS-DT's chief engineer came on the board and told everyone yesterday that their power upgrade on channel 44 will come in three phases. First, they're on their STA at 363 kw on channel 44. They'll go another 110 kw higher or so in the months to come (phase two). Then, he told everyone that WLS intends to go as close to 1 mw as possible, in an application that would be filed sometime in the future.

And as for little WCHU-LD, which was on 44 until they got taken out by WLS on Halloween, they're now on STA on channel 33, highly directional to the southwest to protect 1 mw WITI-DT (FOX) in Milwaukee.

narkspud

11-04-09, 08:55 AM

tell my good friend that lives 5 miles away from me that has no access to broadband about how he is switching to online.

Wireless. :D

But really my point, and Copps' point, was that over-the-air broadcasters could have a stronger argument for keeping their spectrum if they served the public interest better. I know here in LA if you did away with all the infomercials, home shopping, mindless reality television, TV preacher scam artists and sensationalist plastic-surgery-enhanced "news" shows, you'd have more than enough wireless spectrum to go around.

Trip in VA

11-04-09, 10:36 AM

Wireless. :D

Good luck watching video on it.

- Trip

narkspud

11-04-09, 10:40 AM

Good luck watching video on it.

- Trip

Sigh ... does NOBODY get this smiley concept? :rolleyes:

Trip in VA

11-04-09, 10:46 AM

Falcon_77

11-04-09, 11:14 AM

I know here in LA if you did away with all the infomercials, home shopping, mindless reality television, TV preacher scam artists and sensationalist plastic-surgery-enhanced "news" shows, you'd have more than enough wireless spectrum to go around.

The concept of low power television doesn't seem to have turned out very well here.

At least sub-channels are the choice of a station, but dedicated RF channels for it is another thing. KBEH is supposedly has a full power license. I'm really having a hard time figuring out how they ever got that status.

TiVoFishMan

11-04-09, 01:09 PM

I do, but while I know you're speaking in jest, I've argued with people who state things like that in all seriousness in discussions like these. While I'm at UVA now, having lived at home with the wireless Internet service people are so quick to push as the answer for rural people, I feel a need to shoot down these sorts of things as quickly as possible, lest those of us in rural areas actually get permanently stuck with this trash.

- Trip

Agreed. Keep fighting the good fight. There are a lot of us with you.

I find it interesting that after all this effort has been spent to improve the quality of television, to take television pictures and sound to the next quantum level, in going from analog TV to digital / HDTV (with more than 18 Mb to work with), there are now forces out there trying to force all video to be distributed through a medium (wireless) that will give each user 1 - 2 Mb, maybe, after a few years, when it's mature, less today. This will result in picture quality greatly inferior to old analog TV!

So, only a few years after we take a quantum leap forward in video and audio quality, there are forces trying to take it an even bigger quantum leap back.

There is an analogy in the technology of audio:

I was very much engaged in, and a very early adopter of Compact Disk technology. I bought a Sony CDP-101, for $800 in October of 1983. That was the first CD player available in North America.

CD's were a quantum leap forward, from Vinyl and Cassettes, in audio quality.

Today, for convenience and massive storage, what do we have? We have MP3s, that, at any reasonable bit rate, yield audio quality inferior to the old vinyl, inferior to analog cassettes, and a quantum leap inferior to CDs.

Don't get me wrong, I own an Ipod. It's convenient and I use it, but if I really want to hear a music recording the way the artist and producer heard it in the recording studio, I have to break out the CD.

It would be a shame if they ever stopped making CD's, leaving us with the more convenient, but vastly lower quality mp3 and similar formats. Just as it will be a shame if the TV spectrum is re-allocated to wireless, leaving our only option for video blurry artifact laden video on our cell phones. :(

Stanislav

11-04-09, 01:26 PM

But really my point, and Copps' point, was that over-the-air broadcasters could have a stronger argument for keeping their spectrum if they served the public interest better. I know here in LA if you did away with all the infomercials, home shopping, mindless reality television, TV preacher scam artists and sensationalist plastic-surgery-enhanced "news" shows, you'd have more than enough wireless spectrum to go around.

Does "serving the public interest" mean "giving them what will make them better citizens" or "giving them what they want to watch?" Obviously, there are millions of viewers who actually enjoy watching "infomercials, home shopping, mindless reality television, TV preacher scam artists and sensationalist plastic-surgery-enhanced 'news' shows." You may fault their taste or intelligence (I certainly do), but TV stations stay in business by giving their target audience exactly what they are willing to watch. If OTA TV consisted of nothing but hard news, educational and cultural offerings, and the higher quality dramas and comedies, few would tune in. It is a mass medium, tailored for the lowest common denominator of taste. The fact that there are even a handful of really quality shows on broadcast TV is incidental to the bulk of the schedule, and just a lucky break for more discriminating viewers such as us. (Almost like a form of "cultural welfare" for the minority with brains.) :rolleyes:

sebenste

11-04-09, 02:04 PM

Does "serving the public interest" mean "giving them what will make them better citizens" or "giving them what they want to watch?" Obviously, there are millions of viewers who actually enjoy watching "infomercials, home shopping, mindless reality television, TV preacher scam artists and sensationalist plastic-surgery-enhanced 'news' shows." You may fault their taste or intelligence (I certainly do), but TV stations stay in business by giving their target audience exactly what they are willing to watch. If OTA TV consisted of nothing but hard news, educational and cultural offerings, and the higher quality dramas and comedies, few would tune in. It is a mass medium, tailored for the lowest common denominator of taste. The fact that there are even a handful of really quality shows on broadcast TV is incidental to the bulk of the schedule, and just a lucky break for more discriminating viewers such as us. (Almost like a form of "cultural welfare" for the minority with brains.) :rolleyes:

And from all indications, quality television these days is rarely better with cable/satellite, with exceptions.

Desert Hawk

11-04-09, 07:02 PM

BCF68

11-04-09, 09:30 PM

Wireless. :D

Yes Verizon and their $60 a month "up to" 700 kbps EVDO and their 5 GB a month caps with $51.20 per GB overage fees is a REAL option.

But really my point, and Copps' point, was that over-the-air broadcasters could have a stronger argument for keeping their spectrum if they served the public interest better. I know here in LA if you did away with all the infomercials, home shopping, mindless reality television, TV preacher scam artists and sensationalist plastic-surgery-enhanced "news" shows, you'd have more than enough wireless spectrum to go around.

The point is that the PUBLIC owns the airwaves not the wireless companies. it's up to ME to decide if they can use them not them. WTF are the wireless companies going to do sell me access to the airwaves I already own? Like the wireless companies aren't going to bombard me with ads and other useless crap over MY airwaves?

As I've stated the broadcasters have already given up over 40% of the airwaves they were using prior to 1983 most of which has gone to the wireless companies

narkspud

11-04-09, 10:06 PM

I do, but while I know you're speaking in jest, I've argued with people who state things like that in all seriousness in discussions like these ...

I feel a need to shoot down these sorts of things as quickly as possible, lest those of us in rural areas actually get permanently stuck with this trash.

- Trip

I see the sense in these words. Carry on.

Trip in VA

11-05-09, 12:34 AM

Tonight's FCC action:

The one VHF Nightmare this evening is a repeat of one we've already had. KTSM-9 in El Paso had previously followed in follow El Paso broadcaster KVIA's footsteps and signed its UHF digital back on the air. Now, once again, KTSM-9 is following in KVIA's footsteps by asking for more power on its VHF signal. They want to boost from 34 kW to 70 kW.

KTNC-14 on Mount Diablo has been at 3.51 kW while it deals with land mobile problems. It now wants to boost to 24.6 kW to see if any more land mobile problems pop up. The final power authorized in the CP is 40 kW.

KCET-28 in Los Angeles is claiming co-channel interference complaints with regard to XHJK-DT in Tijuana and wants to increase power from 155 kW to 220 kW under STA to compensate.

Finally, WOTV-20 in Grand Rapids is preparing to top-mount their channel 20 antenna. Doing so will require Canadian concurrence and a slight drop in power, so they've sought an STA to operate the top-mounted antenna at further reduced power while the Canadians are being dealt with.

- Trip

Larry Kenney

11-05-09, 03:41 AM

KTNC-14 on Mount Diablo has been at 3.51 kW while it deals with land mobile problems. It now wants to boost to 24.6 kW to see if any more land mobile problems pop up. The final power authorized in the CP is 40 kW.

- Trip

Wow! I didn't realize that they were running with just 3.51 kW. They have an amazingly good signal here, 30 miles away, for such low power. I get a 22 dB SNR signal from them.

Larry
SF

Stanislav

11-05-09, 07:49 AM

I think it will be a very sad world if the internet replaces all other media. Some so-called experts think that is where we are heading. They are saying that print newspapers and magazines will disappear, CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, etc. will be replaced by downloading, print books will be replaced by e-books, and now this crap about broadcast television possibly ending. At first ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX would become cable networks, replacing the local affiliate business model. Some experts say linear cable networks will eventually be gone, possibly with the exception of networks showing live events such as sports, and the future of tv be almost entirely on-demand via the internet. The same "experts" say broadcast radio will go away, replaced by music streamed to our cars by wireless internet. I WANT NO PART OF THIS VISION OF THE FUTURE!!! I like to pick up a physical newspaper, magazine, or book and read an actual printed page instead of having to boot up a comuter to read anything. I like to watch tv as we have always known it, not on a computer. I like real local radio stations playing music. I like popping in physical media to play prerecorded music and video. Most other people feel the same way. Don;t get me wrong, I love the internet. I use it almost every day for forums like this and other things that only the internet can do. The internet has definately made life better. But the internet should never supplant all other media. God bless the internet. But if the internet replaces everything else, GOD HELP US ALL!!!

It's that "in-demand" mentality and the insatiable desire for more, more, more of everything that has bred this. We're looking at a generation that has been raised to demand anything, everything, anytime, every time. They are saturated with choices and options and deluged with content. There are college kids with more music on their iPods than they can listen to in a lifetime. There are satellite TV subscribers that get so many channels that they don't even know what half of them are. They can instantly hook up electronically with practically anyone on the planet.

It's all summed up in that commercial (forget for which electronics chain) with the guy salivating over a showroom of enormous plasma HDTVs that are each bigger than my first car. The tagline is "I want it all, and I want it NOW." Geez, isn't that attitude what has thoroughly screwed up our economy? The unbridled greed of corporate America (which has matched or exceeded the great robber barons of the distant past), coupled with middle-class people irresponsibly overextending themselves because they MUST have the latest, greatest, biggest, newest, coolest gadgets, and a house twice too big for their needs and three times too big for their income?

I'm in no wise a Spartan or a Luddite. Choice is good; abundance is nice; technology certainly has the power to improve our lives. But too much choice, too many options (the good, the bad, and the bizarre) and all of it available on demand leads not to satisfaction and enlightenment, but restlessness and superficiality. It breaks down the ability to be discerning and to evaluate what you see and hear responsibly and reasonably. Anything you want, here it is in bits and bytes for ya. It all becomes almost unreal, and never satiates the appetite for ever more stuff. There's no wait, no effort, no sacrifice to be made that leads to a deeper appreciation for what you ultimately have -- it all starts to be taken for granted.

Sorry this whole rant is so off-topic -- or maybe it's not, because this culture is at the root of everything that's happening in the world of communications.

Calaveras

11-05-09, 09:16 AM

Wow! I didn't realize that they were running with just 3.51 kW. They have an amazingly good signal here, 30 miles away, for such low power. I get a 22 dB SNR signal from them.

Larry
SF

Larry, I assume you have line of sight to Mt. Diablo. This is another example that power is largely irrelevant if you have true LOS and a decent antenna. KTNC is LOS here, 80 miles distant, and is SNR 25-28 dB most of the time even with co-channel interference from KAZV analog.

Chuck

BCF68

11-05-09, 01:25 PM

Larry, I assume you have line of sight to Mt. Diablo. This is another example that power is largely irrelevant if you have true LOS and a decent antenna.

A lot of people don't live within LOS and thus power is VERY important.

Stanislav

11-05-09, 04:40 PM

Interesting...I'm watching MSNBC coverage of the terrible mass shooting at Ft. Hood, and noted that footage from KCEN in Temple had a bug with a "9" logo (their DTV RF channel) rather than "6" (their former analog channel). I checked online, and it seems KCEN indeed "re-branded" to their new channel post-transition, and use 9 as their PSIP channel. This is highly unusual -- I only know personally of one other such case, because it's local to me: WACX in Leesburg FL used 40 (their DTV RF channel) after their early transition, not 55 (their former analog channel).

What (if any) other stations chose to "re-brand" post-transition to their new channel number, and given the seeming rigidity of the FCC rules regarding PSIP channel numbers, how have they managed to get permission to do this?

Trip in VA

11-05-09, 04:55 PM

Very few changed their mapping on transition day. I'm told all got waivers that are not found on the FCC site.

KCEN is the biggest I think, the others are the Sainte Partner II stations in northern California. KVIQ rebranded from 6 to 17, KBVU from 29 to 28, KCVU from 30 to 20. I think Oregon PBS might have done so as well; I've received no confirmation except for notation on Oregon PBS's website itself, but I think KOAB might map to 11-1 now instead of 3-1 and KEPB might map to 29-1 rather than 28-1.

There are others I am aware of that map to the physical channel but they predate the transition.

- Trip

Desert Hawk

11-05-09, 05:15 PM

KAIL in Fresno was analog channel 53 digital RF channel 7. They stayed on 7 post transition and map to 7-1, not 53-1. RTV on their subchannel maps to 7-2.

Trip in VA

11-05-09, 05:37 PM

I was only listing stations that did so on or near transition day. Stanislav, did you want a comprehensive list, or just those done on transition day?

- Trip

Stanislav

11-05-09, 07:04 PM

I was only listing stations that did so on or near transition day. Stanislav, did you want a comprehensive list, or just those done on transition day?

I wasn't necessarily needing a comprehensive list, but then, I might have known you'd jump on it. ;) I was just curious, and wondering how many (or few, really) stations did this. And given our previous discussions on the subject of PSIP, virtual channels, and "branding" (on which we more or less agreed to disagree), I'm curious whether anyone has any inputs on any specific examples as to motive: e.g., why buck the prevailing sentiment of most of the industry.

For KCEN to do this surprises me -- it was the first station in the market, and has been around for 56 years, so you'd think they'd be pretty attached to the notion of being known as "Channel 6."

foxeng

11-05-09, 07:26 PM

WLXI Greensboro, NC rebranded from 61 (analog) to 43 (digital RF) with an FCC waiver. A LP in the market is branding with BOTH their analog and digital (their analog is STILL on as well as their digital). Best we can tell, no waiver from the FCC on this one.

WA5IYX

11-05-09, 10:02 PM

In its FCC filings our KLRN-9 goes to great lengths to criticize their being stuck with a low ERP to "protect" the much smaller DMA of KCEN-9. In KLRN's 47 years their nearest full-power analog co-channel had been KTRE, Lufkin, c. 275 mi vs now about half that range.

Trip in VA

11-06-09, 12:33 AM

FCC Action:

WMBF-32 has increased power from 165 kW to 530 kW. I bet nobody noticed.

KBCW-45 is running at 330 kW rather than the 1000 kW for which they have a permit.

WLGA-47 has filed for a permit for its new 800 kW channel 30 signal the FCC approved.

Finally, a new VHF nightmare, WAOW-9 in Wausau seeks a power increase from 31.6 kW to 63.2 kW.

- Trip

Falcon_77

11-06-09, 10:59 AM

WLGA-47 has filed for a permit for its new 800 kW channel 30 signal the FCC approved.

I don't remember seeing this being approved. The last note I have is that an NPRM was issued (in September)?

I must have missed something as it has apparently been removed from your channel change page as well.

Trip in VA

11-06-09, 11:03 AM

I don't remember seeing this being approved. The last note I have is that an NPRM was issued (in September)?

I must have missed something as it has apparently been removed from your channel change page as well.

I remove them after the construction permit has been filed. But it was definitely approved, I remember changing the color on the channel change page and deleting it from my own list of docket numbers to watch.

Here's the R&O: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2274A1.pdf

- Trip

Falcon_77

11-06-09, 11:14 AM

Thanks. I was out of town then and probably missed it or forgot to update it.

Maybe they don't need to be removed from your channel change page quite that quickly... :D

Trip in VA

11-06-09, 11:19 AM

Thanks. I was out of town then and probably missed it or forgot to update it.

Maybe they don't need to be removed from your channel change page quite that quickly... :D

Normally they sit there longer than two weeks. I think KTXA/KTVT were there almost two months before the permit was filed.

I also have a hint, if you want to see any that have been removed, go to the "View Source" menu option in your browser...

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-07-09, 02:07 PM

My analyzer's power cord has arrived! I'm loving it so far. Was able to fine-tune the antenna position and get an extra 1.5 dB MER out of WBRA-DT 3.

- Trip

TiVoFishMan

11-11-09, 10:19 AM

An interesting twist has arisen in my local DMA's "VHF Nightmare".

Local channel WVUE (FOX8) was granted a channel change from VHF-8 to UHF-29. For several months, they have been simulcasting on their previously licensed channel 8, and their pre-transition power and antenna configuration 29.

As part of their granting of the channel change, the FCC agreed in principal to an increase in HAAT and ERP on 29 over their pre-transition configuration, for which they've applied for a construction permit.

However, in the interim, while they build out their higher-powered channel 29 facility, they have applied for Special Temporary Authority to continue simulcasting on both 8 and on 29 (at the pre-transition power).

Their reasoning, gleaned from the discussion in their applications, is that the very distant viewers are currently better served by the signal on 8, whereas the closer-in viewers, using indoor antennas, are better served by the moderately-powered signal on 29.

Their theory (hope) is, that the higher powered 29 will cover everybody, from the close-in viewers with indoor antennas to the distant "fringe" with large outdoor antennas, that currently get the better signal on 8.

One of their engineers has stated (in the local New Orleans thread) that they have yet to even order the new antenna, so at the earliest, the higher powered 29 signal is a few months away, the way I see it. So, they're trying to get permission to continue the dual-channels for quite some time yet!

Will 660 kW to 850 kW on 29 really "fill the gap"? My gut would tend to say no, but the models appear to say yes.

Request to remain on 8:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS_Attachment/getattachment.jsp?appn=101340918&qnum=5370&copynum=1&exhcnum=1

Request to remain on 29 with their "pre transition" power:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS_Attachment/getattachment.jsp?appn=101340904&qnum=5200&copynum=1&exhcnum=1

Application for their final ch. 29 configuration:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101336516&formid=301&fac_num=4149

Trip in VA

11-11-09, 10:21 AM

The power level change probably won't, but the extra height will probably do a lot to help. I suspect that's the bigger issue.

- Trip

Falcon_77

11-11-09, 11:12 AM

Also, 8 is non-directional whereas 29 is directional. However, I don't know how many people live to the S/SE.

Viewers on the fringes may also have antennas favoring VHF.

TiVoFishMan

11-11-09, 11:52 AM

Also, 8 is non-directional whereas 29 is directional. However, I don't know how many people live to the S/SE.

Viewers on the fringes may also have antennas favoring VHF.

The population of the DMA is biased to the north and northwest of where most of the towers are. There's little more than swamp, and the Gulf of Mexico, to the SE!

That's why many of the New Orleans channels have cardioid, or similar, directional patterns pointed to the northwest.

In some press statements, discussions in forums, and a personal talk I had with an engineer named Richard at WVUE, Kentwood, LA is the main example that WVUE sites as the furthest-fringe that it seems feasible to try to reach.

Nielsen says Kentwood (birthplace of Brittany Spears, y'all! :D ) is in the New Orleans DMA, but it's well outside the theoretical grade B contour of the New Orleans locals.

From what I understand, WVUE has actually tracked down and interviewed a few OTA viewers in Kentwood. It takes a monstrous antenna with an amp on something like a 50' tower, but they can receive New Orleans locals. From what I understand, they found several Kentwood residents who can receive WVUE on 8 with fair reliability, can receive at least a few of the UHF locals (WWL, in particular), but absolutely cannot receive WVUE's current 29 signal. Their reports make WVUE optimistic that these viewers will be able to receive them with the higher power, higher HAAT 29.

Falcon_77

11-11-09, 04:00 PM

From what I understand, they found several Kentwood residents who can receive WVUE on 8 with fair reliability, can receive at least a few of the UHF locals (WWL, in particular), but absolutely cannot receive WVUE's current 29 signal. Their reports make WVUE optimistic that these viewers will be able to receive them with the higher power, higher HAAT 29.

According to TV Fool, WVUE is about 3.8dB weaker than WWL with the current facility on 29. The actual difference seems quite a bit wider if WWL is reliable and WVUE is hopeless, unless there's an interferer, I don't see one on TV Fool.

These stations are about 75 miles away. Some "local" stations, huh? :eek:

Well, Baton Rouge is a bit closer, but that's not the DMA, huh?

I probably should have figured there wasn't much more than swamp to the SE. :D

satpro

11-11-09, 06:51 PM

There are some oil platforms out there, but they probably have cable!

Trip in VA

11-11-09, 09:47 PM

http://www.rabbitears.info/specan/

Here's what I'm seeing with my VHF bowtie in my apartment.

- Trip

arxaw

11-12-09, 08:58 AM

... Their reports make WVUE optimistic that these viewers will be able to receive them with the higher power, higher HAAT 29.The higher HAAT alone would probably do the job.

TiVoFishMan

11-12-09, 09:03 AM

There are some oil platforms out there, but they probably have cable!

Typically, they have DirecTV, with locals (from whatever gulf coast city they're closest to, typically).

foxeng

11-12-09, 01:10 PM

And now for something completely different (well sorta):

DTV Notes
DTV Coupon Redemption Ends With Over $1 Billion Worth Unused
Approximately 30 million coupons unredeemed as program ends
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/12/2009 11:28:20 AM

The government's DTV converter box coupon program has officially ended, with approximately 30 million, or $1.2 billion worth of coupons, going unredeemed.

The Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition Thursday pointed out that Nov. 9 was the last day that they could redeem the $40 coupons issued by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration.

CERC said that it had redeemed approximately 35 million coupons, which could be applied toward the purchase of a converter box that allows analog TV's to receive a digital over-the-air signal. "The fact that the coupon program ended quietly and with almost no public notice speaks to the hard work and effort so many people poured into the process," said CERC Executive Director Chris McLean.

NTIA mailed a little over 64 million coupons, according to final figures from Oct. 14, which means almost half of them were never redeemed or used.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/388662-DTV_Coupon_Redemption_Ends_With_Over_1_Billion_Worth_Unused. php

Falcon_77

11-12-09, 10:12 PM

According to TV Fool, WVUE is about 3.8dB weaker than WWL with the current facility on 29. The actual difference seems quite a bit wider if WWL is reliable and WVUE is hopeless, unless there's an interferer, I don't see one on TV Fool.

What about beam-tilt? The STA on 29 is listed at 1 degree, vs. none (?) for 8. 1 degree seems like a bit more than typical for an antenna not on a mountain or hill.

If I'm doing my calculations correctly, it's resulting in the main beam reaching ground at about 10 miles away. So, at 70 miles, some additional signal could be lost from having it "burrowing into the ground" too early.

The proposed top mounted facility, with 0.75d beam tilt would have the main beam hitting the ground at about 15 miles. 0.5d would seem to be sufficient tilt to serve the fringes and close up areas.

Looking at the SRTM maps on Radio Mobile is an eye opener. Without road maps, it looks like there's hardly any land. More like "streets" of land. There are a lot of "0" elevations around... (have a look at the attached to see what I mean).

re_nelson

11-13-09, 12:50 AM

Since a good number of technical folks participate in this venue and it does relate to allotments, permit me to bring up this topic and get your thoughts.

The maximum power for low power digital stations appears to be 1/10 of what was allowed for analog LPTV. Thus, 150 kW UHF analog yields 15 kW digital and 3 kW for VHF analog caps at 0.3 kW digital. Was it just this simple formula for the DTVs or was a more complex method (OET-69?) involved to set the limit?

And is there any lobbying for raising the cap beyond 300 watts for low power facilities on VHF (excluding WCHU-LP's bizarre application for 4.75 kW on channel 7 in Chicago)?

At my location (~40 miles from the Cedar Hill, TX farm) with a VHF/UHF antenna outdoors, all of the low power UHF stations have excellent reception, measuring between 72-87 on a 0-100 scale. While I do receive the 300 watt low power VHF station consistently, it never peaks beyond 45 on the scale. The full power VHF faciities (ranging in power from 13 to 45 kW) all peg the meter at full scale.

foxeng

11-13-09, 07:37 AM

What about beam-tilt? The STA on 29 is listed at 1 degree, vs. none (?) for 8. 1 degree seems like a bit more than typical for an antenna not on a mountain or hill.

If I'm doing my calculations correctly, it's resulting in the main beam reaching ground at about 10 miles away. So, at 70 miles, some additional signal could be lost from having it "burrowing into the ground" too early.

The proposed top mounted facility, with 0.75d beam tilt would have the main beam hitting the ground at about 15 miles. 0.5d would seem to be sufficient tilt to serve the fringes and close up areas.

Looking at the SRTM maps on Radio Mobile is an eye opener. Without road maps, it looks like there's hardly any land. More like "streets" of land. There are a lot of "0" elevations around... (have a look at the attached to see what I mean).

You have to look at the vertical elevation pattern to see how large the lobe is. The lower the gain of the antenna, the bigger the lobe and the more power it takes to to reach the same coverage. If the lobe is large enough, beam tilt isn't needed. Beam tilt becomes important when the gain goes up and the lobe narrows down needing to direct it more to the ground closer in.

LMUBill

11-15-09, 01:27 AM

Sorry if this is major off-topic, didn't find a thread on it elsewhere and seen some discussion on it here before.

Is anyone else getting channels via tropo skip right now? I am in the area where TN-KY and VA come together and I'm getting several Chattanooga (WDEF, WRCB, WELF and WTVC), 3 stations from Birmingham/Tuscaloosa area (WUOA, WTTO and WABM), WDBJ out of Roanoke and WXII out of Winston-Salem right now. I am also getting WUNF out of Western North Carolina as well. (Could get that one on analog before so not too much of a surprise.)

WDEF is blowing away WYMT's signal (the cable company here uses WYMT's OTA signal and it is still on there so I know that they are on the air) and WABM is confusing my TV because it's trying to map two stations to 68-1 (WLFG is mapped to that here).

So far except for WUNF and WXII most of the stations I'm getting are SW or NE of here.

Pretty cool....

ChrisPC

11-15-09, 02:03 AM

In some press statements, discussions in forums, and a personal talk I had with an engineer named Richard at WVUE, Kentwood, LA is the main example that WVUE sites as the furthest-fringe that it seems feasible to try to reach.

Nielsen says Kentwood (birthplace of Brittany Spears, y'all! :D ) is in the New Orleans DMA, but it's well outside the theoretical grade B contour of the New Orleans locals.

From what I understand, WVUE has actually tracked down and interviewed a few OTA viewers in Kentwood.

I grew up just across the state line in Mississippi. Reception has always been spotty; the local cable companies can have New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and/or Jackson locals. With DTV, some areas get great signals, but closer to the state line, they're out of luck.

BTW, Britney was born in McComb. :rolleyes:

WA5IYX

11-15-09, 07:50 AM

From the http://www.mountainlake.k12.mn.us/ham/aprs/path.cgi?map=na site
The maps are auto-generated in real time using 144-MHz packet signals and give a pretty good indication of tropo conditions.

BCF68

11-16-09, 02:20 PM

dline

11-16-09, 03:02 PM

Larry Kenney

11-16-09, 05:06 PM

From the http://www.mountainlake.k12.mn.us/ham/aprs/path.cgi?map=na site
The maps are auto-generated in real time using 144-MHz packet signals and give a pretty good indication of tropo conditions.

Thanks for that link! That's a great site to keep bookmarked. Not that I expect to ever see any red out here on the West Coast. :) At least we get yellow.

Larry
SF

Trip in VA

11-16-09, 05:09 PM

FCC web note:

Not sure when it happened, but it appears the FCC has moved some stuff around on its database servers. Old links beginning with "http://fjallfoss ..." appear to be broken now.

It also appears that if you simply copy the link to your browser's address bar and replace "fjallfoss" with "licensing", it should work.

It happened last weekend. The CDBS database files that are used to update RabbitEars were broken for much of the week last week as they tried to get things fixed.

It looks like they've moved a lot of things off of svartifoss2, hraunfoss, and fjallfoss in favor of the generically-named licensing server, but the new server is much faster than the old ones. My nightly watching of FCC updates coming in used to generally take until at least 12:25 AM to fully come in for roughly 100 new filings. Last night, it was already done with all 117 new filings when I checked at 12:05 AM.

They also moved to the new ECFS, but it's got a rendering bug on my system that makes it unusable. My bookmark is remaining with the old one for the time being.

- Trip

ChrisC47

11-16-09, 09:48 PM

It looks like they've moved a lot of things off of svartifoss2, hraunfoss, and fjallfoss in favor of the generically-named licensing server

Which brings up a question I've always wondered about: what's with those hostnames?

Lacking any clue as to what they meant, they just seemed goofy. Almost retro, in that lots of servers in the early days of the web had funny names like that. At Georgia Tech we named them after coyote-roadrunner cartoon objects -- anvil, acme, boulder, etc. Did the FCC just graduate from the mid 90s?

(throws in chum, stands back and watches the water churn)

Trip in VA

11-16-09, 09:56 PM

They're named after waterfalls in Iceland.

- Trip

arxaw

11-16-09, 10:09 PM

Trip, thanks. Always wondered...

Trip in VA

11-16-09, 10:19 PM

Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svartifoss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullfoss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hraunfossar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fjallfoss

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-17-09, 12:12 AM

FCC action has been light recently, but a few points.

WWAZ-DT apparently signed on briefly to preserve the license, and has requested to remain silent again.

KFTY has filed to rotate their directional pattern by 90 degrees (counterclockwise) so as to put more power toward the south.

And a VHF nightmare, WSUR-9 in Puerto Rico wants to boost from 21.6 kW to 43 kW.

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-20-09, 12:10 AM

The FCC site is really crawling this evening. I wonder what's up with it. Can't get any filings to open.

- Trip

sebenste

11-20-09, 01:36 AM

The FCC site is really crawling this evening. I wonder what's up with it. Can't get any filings to open.

- Trip

Nothing tonight worth noting. WBUI went full power. That's about it.

Trip in VA

11-20-09, 01:42 AM

I eventually got in and noted the same thing, so I didn't comment further.

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-21-09, 10:57 AM

Cross-posted from the Roanoke thread in case anyone is interested:

My last class before Thanksgiving lets out at 12:15 on Tuesday, but I might have to work on an Electronics II project before I can leave. Either way, I hope to be home on Tuesday evening. At which time, I will be hooking my analyzer to the roof antenna again.

My computer has been giving me some major headaches over the last few days. Since it's rather important that it work properly, it's my top priority. I was planning to change operating systems over Christmas break (from Kubuntu to Sidux) but at the rate it seems to be deteriorating, I might do so over Thanksgiving instead. It would suck up most of the time I have, I figure. I want to hold off until Christmas break (last exam is on December 14) since I have to mail the system off to Toshiba to get my headphone jack fixed and I could put Vista back on it before I ship it off (making them happy), but this is just insane. I might just call and ask them if I can keep my hard drives when I mail it off and do the reload over Thanksgiving.

Whether these things get done over Christmas or Thanksgiving, I have a bit of a list of things I want to do. I want to get pictures and information about my new analyzer posted ( http://www.rabbitears.info/specan ). I do need to finish typing up my last week at WDBJ, but I won't do that until I can post the pictures, which I'm not going to do until I reload the system because otherwise Gwenview and Konqueror are just so slow right now that it'll take forever to sort them.

I've also got four or five new features on RabbitEars that are currently half finished that I would like to finish. I'm working on a mobile version of the site that is compatible with the DS Web Browser (as well as other mobile devices: http://ds.rabbitears.info ), a way of performing a "poor man's interference analysis" that needs some mathematical work done to it, ownership maps which show where an owner has coverage, including translators (mostly for statewide PBS networks), making the MediaFLO section of the site a little more informative and easier to use, and some other odds and ends which are slipping my mind right at the moment.

So we'll have to see.

- Trip

SnellKrell

11-21-09, 11:03 AM

Trip -

So glad that you're planning to complete your "Job Blog."

Look forward to that with the pictures.

Happy Thanksgiving!

SnellKrell

willscary

11-21-09, 02:34 PM

Finally, a new VHF nightmare, WAOW-9 in Wausau seeks a power increase from 31.6 kW to 63.2 kW.

- Trip

I wouldn't call this one a nightmare. I live 62 miles from the tower and receive them perfectly at between 92-98%. It will be nice to see the increase however. Channel 7, WSAW, is on the same tower at about the same height on a 3 arm candelabra mount. They are running 72 kW and I see them at 96-98%.

The nightmare in this area is WLUK channel 11. While I receive them just fine at 98-100% (38 miles away), others, even those closer than me, have problems receiving WLUK's 17+ kW signal. I really wish that they could increase to 68 kW, but as of now, the Fox affiliate in Madison, WI is broadcasting on the same channel 11. Hopefully, after they move their signal away from 11, WLUK can raise their transmission power, allowing others to see this somewhat elusive signal.

Bill

Trip in VA

11-22-09, 01:29 AM

I consider any VHF station which files for a power increase to be a VHF nightmare unless there are special circumstances which make it not a VHF nightmare for whatever reason. (I'm too tired to think of one of those right now, but I know I've run into them.)

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-23-09, 12:14 AM

KBEH has filed to operate both the 1000 kW Mount Wilson facility and the 85 kW Oxnard facility as a pair of DTS transmitters.

- Trip

narkspud

11-23-09, 11:53 AM

KBEH has filed to operate both the 1000 kW Mount Wilson facility and the 85 kW Oxnard facility as a pair of DTS transmitters.

- Trip

Isn't that what they're doing now? Just wondering ...

Trip in VA

11-23-09, 11:55 AM

If they have been, they've had no legal authority to do so as far as I can tell.

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-23-09, 12:19 PM

Dave Loudin

11-23-09, 01:19 PM

If they have been, they've had no legal authority to do so as far as I can tell.

- Trip

Actually, they've had authority on an experimental basis since April 1, 2009. See BEXP-20090317ADV. Anyone want to believe that the ERP was actually "0.000001 KW" ?

Falcon_77

11-23-09, 03:34 PM

Actually, they've had authority on an experimental basis since April 1, 2009. See BEXP-20090317ADV. Anyone want to believe that the ERP was actually "0.000001 KW" ?

Am I to believe that this glorified LP station is really going to broadcast its junk at 1000kW? Hmmm, because it would be more valuable to sell to a Daystar, etc.?

Trip in VA

11-23-09, 03:40 PM

Mizzou!

11-23-09, 04:43 PM

I belive these are probably for MediaFLO (FLOTV). They purchased channel 56 across the nation.

Trip in VA

11-23-09, 04:46 PM

I belive these are probably for MediaFLO (FLOTV). They purchased channel 56 across the nation.

No, they're licensed to a "Manifest Wireless." It's channel 55 that's licensed to MediaFLO across the nation. I already know where all of those transmitters are.

- Trip

Dave Loudin

11-23-09, 04:54 PM

Dave:

No, that was their authority to operate a booster on Mount Wilson. Not authority to operate the DTS they're proposing now.

They had an on-channel analog 63 booster up there too at one point, I believe.

- Trip

Dang! You're right. I didn't pay attention to the antenna height numbers (~50 feet above ground, over 4000 feet above sea level.)

SnellKrell

11-23-09, 04:59 PM

Dang! You're right. I didn't pay attention to the antenna height numbers (~50 feet above ground, over 4000 feet above sea level.)

The "Trip-ster" knows!

Falcon_77

11-23-09, 07:33 PM

No, they're licensed to a "Manifest Wireless." It's channel 55 that's licensed to MediaFLO across the nation. I already know where all of those transmitters are.

- Trip

I recall that Qualcomm secured 56 (or 54?) in select markets, in addition to 55. That may not be the case here, unless that company name is a subsidiary, etc.

SnellKrell

11-23-09, 07:42 PM

Falcon -

Here's what I could find - Manifest Wireless is owned by Frontier Wireless - which in turn is an EchoStar Corp. side company.

Frontier Wireless LLC, bid $711.8 million to win licenses for 700-megahertz broadcast spectrum in 168 cities across the country.

justalurker

11-23-09, 11:20 PM

And there are Echostar technical facilities in Atlanta ... a good place to test whatever service they are planning (OTA service for people without a southern view?).

If MediaFlo can feed cell phones Echostar can feed someone their service.

BTW: Echostar's facility is about 12 miles from two of these sites and 28 miles from the third. It is inside the triangle formed by the three sites.

Trip in VA

11-24-09, 10:02 AM

Cross-posting from Roanoke again:

I wiped out my Kubuntu install last night and replaced with Sidux. Much faster than Kubuntu was. I definitely feel I made the right call here. I'm still fiddling with select minor things, but for the most part everything seems correct.

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-25-09, 12:50 AM

FCC action from the last two days, since I've been busy:

WRNN-LD 26 should now be operating from its final configuration in New York City. Anyone seeing it?

KESQ seeks a DTS.

KHNL/KFVE/KGMB should now be on their more powerful signals. Hopefully this resolves some reception complaints.

WJKP-LD in Corning has signed on.

WSBS-LD 3 realized that was a stupid idea and now wants to flash-cut the analog 50.

- Trip

sebenste

11-25-09, 12:59 AM

FCC action from the last two days, since I've been busy:

- Trip

I also saw a license to cover for WHBF/Quad Cities, IA/IL translator in downtown Rock Island, but nobody on the Quad Cities board has definitively seen it yet.

arxaw

11-25-09, 08:20 AM

...wsbs-ld 3 realized that was a stupid idea and now wants to flash-cut the analog 50.lol

SnellKrell

11-25-09, 10:03 AM

Concerning WRNN-LD (26) in New York, I receive nothing from this station!

Although it's transmitting from the same location as WNYN-LD (39), the Citicorp Building in Long Island City, 26's paltry amount power won't allow the signal to cross the East River to me.

39, in fact, is among my strongest and steadiest signals.

Trip in VA

11-25-09, 01:51 PM

I must have missed it, but on Friday the FCC approved WINK-DT 9's request to relocate to channel 50.

Also, KDMD-33 got an NPRM for the move to 32.

- Trip

satpro

11-25-09, 03:20 PM

Now if only the LP in the path on ch 50 would cease I would have a clear channel for WINK 50 when they move.

Trip in VA

11-25-09, 03:32 PM

http://www.rabbitears.info/specan/

- Trip

re_nelson

11-25-09, 03:44 PM

http://www.rabbitears.info/specan/

Trip --

How about an update on your receiving equipment up at UVA and in Charlotte County? In particular, what antennas and preamps (if any) are you using.

Extra credit for pictures. :-)

Trip in VA

11-25-09, 04:29 PM

Trip --

How about an update on your receiving equipment up at UVA and in Charlotte County? In particular, what antennas and preamps (if any) are you using.

Extra credit for pictures. :-)

At UVA, I'm using just the VHF bowtie. It gets all the UHF signals great. This i what it looked like right after it was made: http://www.rabbitears.info/screencaps/1-temp/Ant1.jpeg

At home, I have a Winegard PR-8800 for UHF and an Antennacraft Y5-2-6 for VHF (high and low) and that gets put through a Radio Shack amp. Here are the antennas: http://images.townnews.com/southsidemessenger.com/content/articles/2008/12/18/news/top_stories/ts3.jpg

(The antenna at the bottom below the rotor is the 900 MHz yagi for Internet.)

- Trip

Trip in VA

11-27-09, 12:15 AM

FCC action:

WLS wants to increase power on channel 7 up to 7 kW now for some reason. I wonder what's going on over there. EDIT: Upon further reading, it's a backup for when they do antenna work on Sears.

WRNN-LD 26 now seeks displacement to channel 9. WWPS-LD is probably very unhappy about this.

I think that's all the interesting stuff... Oh, and K46KG-D is being sold to KGW. I'm wondering if this is going to be a UHF translator.

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-01-09, 04:39 PM

I just finished sorting the pictures from my last week at WDBJ. I have to upload them when I get back from class. :)

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-02-09, 11:14 AM

Looks like the buyer for some of Trinity's translators is Daystar. Daystar is buying W45CP Atlantic City, W36DG Cincinnati, W57DN Elgin, K28IL New Orleans, W65CG Pittsburgh, and W40AZ Wilmington DE.

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-03-09, 12:15 AM

re_nelson

12-03-09, 12:48 AM

The crickets are really loud in here.

FCC action (finally). WJLA seeks a fill-in translator on channel 39 in DC, but at less than 1 kW ERP. However, I'm pretty certain they filed the wrong form.

Chirp. :-)

Trip -- If you were in complete charge of the FCC (a czar?), what would be the power limits you'd set on digital LPTVs, lo-VHF, hi-VHF and UHF.

foxfan

12-03-09, 09:19 AM

Dave Loudin

12-03-09, 09:43 AM

I don't know about Trip, but I would experiment. Start out at high levels, measure the interference, and gradually reduce power to find the magic number. The FCC and broadcast engineers have to start living in the "real world", and stop burying their heads in the sand with computer model predictions that most often don't pan out.

Throwing mud at the FCC and the engineering community is not productive, and, in this case, flat out wrong. Read my description of how allotments worked out like they did in the Washington/Baltimore thread. The propagation of VHF and UHF signals is well known, and the ability to assess interference over an area via the OET-69 process is about the best you can do on a practical basis.

To think that engineers and the FCC are doing nothing is ridiculous.

Trip in VA

12-03-09, 09:55 AM

Chirp. :-)

Trip -- If you were in complete charge of the FCC (a czar?), what would be the power limits you'd set on digital LPTVs, lo-VHF, hi-VHF and UHF.

The UHF power level is more than sufficient in my mind. Signals of 15 kW get out just fine.

Upper-VHF should be raised to at least 1 kW. I see no reason why upper-VHF full-powered stations get 3 or 4 times as much power as low-VHF full powers, but when it comes to low-powered stations, upper-V and low-V get the same levels. That makes no sense to me at all.

I have to imagine that the 0.3 kW power level works for low-VHF digitals as long as a low-VHF roof antenna is aimed right at it, but I suspect that it's pretty miserable otherwise. The FCC recently granted K14MW-D on channel 3 permission to use 1.2 kW instead of 0.3 kW, and I'd be curious to find out how well that power level works before issuing a blanket increase.

In that instance, I'm not sure whether raising power on upper-VHF would be justified as well. Probably need to test that too.

- Trip

Dave Loudin

12-03-09, 11:28 AM

Sorry to be so cranky, as upon rereading I see we're talking LPTV. At 15kW, the UHF LPs get a break on range over the old analog limits. With regards to the VHF's, I believe that the two bands get the same power because you can only go so low before it's not worth bothering. Just a hunch.

Trip, you know why the power limits are different for full-power low-VHF versus high-VHF. First, you can't fight physics! Given equating nearly noise-limited reception limits to Grade B analog service areas, low ERPs on low-VHF result (because it would not be fair to give some stations market advantages with regards to reach). Now that there's enough experience to start making adjustments, stations are requesting, and the FCC is approving, power increases on a case-by-case basis. This is a reasonable approach.

N5XZS

12-03-09, 11:36 AM

I think low power stations LD's, should get power level at 3KW on VHF-Low same for VHF high and as for UHF at least 25 KW ERP IMHO.......

But it's up to the FCC, to decide what leavel it should be at, but then again the FCC are all screwed up lately anyway.:p

12-3-09

Falcon_77

12-03-09, 11:41 AM

I have to imagine that the 0.3 kW power level works for low-VHF digitals as long as a low-VHF roof antenna is aimed right at it, but I suspect that it's pretty miserable otherwise.

The digital cliff effect will be much more noticeable on LD Low-VHF stations. I can receive an LP station on 6, with my full sized Low-VHF antenna, but I don't have any expectation of it working at 0.3kW on the digital side.

Considering that a high profile station had to increase their signal to 30kW (vs. 7.56kW) on 6 to be viable, I don't see LD stations at 1/100th that power having much chance for success. Granted, not as many people are looking for LD stations.

I don't know what LD power level to suggest on 2-6 as I don't believe LD or any TV stations should be located there.

Falcon_77

12-03-09, 09:22 PM

FCC Asks TV Broadcasters to Justify Spectrum

http://tvtechnology.com/article/91316

The FCC is looking for more spectrum for wireless broadband, and the spectrum currently used for TV broadcasting has emerged as a prime candidate. This week the commission gave broadcasters until Dec. 21 to justify the use of their existing spectrum.
...
My worst fear is the FCC might allocate all of the UHF TV spectrum to the cell phone companies, requiring TV broadcasters to squeeze into channels 2-13, and limit broadcast content available to viewers by putting multiple stations on one channel when they run out of space in major markets such as New York, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles. Rural viewers, of course, would be out of luck due to interference zones between television markets when such a small number of channels were used. In any event, it seems likely that some, and perhaps many, broadcasters would have to move to another channel.

:eek:

Thomas Desmond

12-03-09, 10:21 PM

Trip in VA

12-04-09, 01:42 AM

A little bit of FCC action tonight.

KPLC has implemented their power increase from 31 to 62 kW.

WPBN has lit up channel 47.

KWTV has petitioned to relocate from channel 9. I presume the permanent channel is 39, but no paperwork to confirm it yet.

And in an amazing act of stupidity, Southern Illinois University (of WSIU/WUSI) is seeking a new allotment on channel 48 in Vienna IL. Since the window for new allotments is currently closed, this has virtually zero chance of being approved.

- Trip

justalurker

12-04-09, 02:36 AM

... this has virtually zero chance of being approved.It sounds like you're starting to understand the FCC enough not to use the word absolutely? :D
I suppose they could have asked for channel 37 and doubled their chances.

(And yes, I've seen some stuff approved that is mind boggling.)

Trip in VA

12-04-09, 02:43 AM

It sounds like you're starting to understand the FCC enough not to use the word absolutely? :D
I suppose they could have asked for channel 37 and doubled their chances.

(And yes, I've seen some stuff approved that is mind boggling.)

Haha, yes. I've seen stranger, but the last petition filed to add a new allotment (a channel 35 in Owensboro KY) went nowhere.

If they make an argument that the area lost coverage due to WSIU's VHF signal, the FCC might waive the rule, but otherwise, I can't see it happening.

- Trip

Stanislav

12-04-09, 06:01 AM

I hope that most of us here are going to be adding our comments to the record before that December 21 comment deadline.

Some of the ideas under consideration could essentially kill OTA digital television by limiting it to standard definition versions of the major channels and nothing else -- and pushing those SD multicasts over to the very channels that are the hardest to receive (but are also the least desirable to the wireless interests).

And stepping on my soapbox for a moment: the entire line of reasoning behind the "value" of spectrum for subscription wireless services versus free broadcast services makes me want to puke. It's extremely elitest, to say the least, by assuming that services that charge hefty monthly fees are somehow inherently more worthwhile than is a free, universal broadcast service.

It's offensive to the broadcasters who invested money in the digital upgrade in good faith that the government wouldn't threaten to pull that spectrum away from the broadcast TV service less than a year after the transition. It's offensive to the viewers who have invested in the hardware to continue receiving digital OTA service on the presumption that we would be able to receive a full spectrum of services from our local broadcasters -- including high definition.

I hope that the proposal to take spectrum away from broadcast television gets shot down in flame, as it deserves.

This whole "we need more spectrum for wireless" thing is a canard. How many phone/text/internet/etc. signals can you cram into just a single 6 mHz TV channel? An awful lot, I would think. We've just had 18 of those channels (52-69) taken away, and that 108 mHz of spectrum has just barely started to be utilized. At least fill that range to capacity before you come crying about needing more space.

More and more, my conspiracy-minded side thinks that all of this has absolutely NOTHING to do with wireless services needing space, and EVERYTHING to do with powerful corporations deliberately working towards the eventual elimination of all free OTA TV. You know that these guys can't STAND the notion that there is still a considerable amount of programming that people can watch without shelling out huge monthly fees and adding to their bottom line. It's not enough for them that 85-90% of the TV audience is already paying for cable, satellite, or other "pay to play" services -- they won't be happy until EVERY American is contributing to the gravy train.

TiVoFishMan

12-04-09, 08:33 AM

This whole "we need more spectrum for wireless" thing is a canard. How many phone/text/internet/etc. signals can you cram into just a single 6 mHz TV channel? An awful lot, I would think. We've just had 18 of those channels (52-69) taken away, and that 108 mHz of spectrum has just barely started to be utilized. At least fill that range to capacity before you come crying about needing more space.

More and more, my conspiracy-minded side thinks that all of this has absolutely NOTHING to do with wireless services needing space, and EVERYTHING to do with powerful corporations deliberately working toward the eventual elimination of all free OTA TV. You know that these guys can't STAND the notion that there is still a considerable amount of programming that people can watch without shelling out huge monthly fees and adding to their bottom line. It's not enough for them that 85-90% of the TV audience is already paying for cable, satellite, or other "pay to play" services -- they won't be happy until EVERY American is contributing to the gravy train.

I agree 100%.

It's not that they really need the spectrum, it's that as the media conglomerates continue to conglomerate, and the cell phone companies, wired phone companies, pay TV distribution companies, and pay TV content providing companies all combine into "communication providers", they want to force everyone to pay to watch any video content whatsoever.

The entire premise of the allocation of the TV spectrum, and the broadcast radio spectrum before that, was that the spectrum, in the United States, at least, belonged "to The People", and that the spectrum would be allocated ("entrusted") to broadcasters who would "serve the Public, as a Public Trustee". (That, at least used to be, the actual wording in broadcast licenses.)

We, "the Public" need to speak out that this publicly-owned spectrum must not be converted into something to make a few giant corporations richer, at the expense of "The Public".

SnellKrell

12-04-09, 08:40 AM

"something to make a few giant corporations richer"

You have left out that shifting the use of spectrum would also allow Washington to bring in billions of dollars by way of more auctions.

A sly way to pay down debt!

Falcon_77

12-04-09, 02:36 PM

I hope that most of us here are going to be adding our comments to the record before that December 21 comment deadline.

Is this something we can comment on or is it reserved for broadcaster comments only? Where can we comment?

Nitewatchman

12-04-09, 03:00 PM

BCF68

12-04-09, 04:17 PM

Falcon_77

12-04-09, 09:16 PM

Broadband Speeds the Plow

http://www.tvtechnology.com/blog/90778

The new end game is nationwide wireless broadband, and anything in the way will be swept aside.

Anyone who believes that broadband itself is the driving force behind the rapidly shifting regulations is sniffing glue. This is strictly a game of revenue per megahertz. Now that consumer electronics makers have reaped a fortune off selling digital TV sets, it's time to come up with some new gizmo that we can all use to avoid the life happening in our immediate vicinity. And phone companies need landline replacement revenues. Voila!

Resultant wireless devices won't interfere with TV signals because there won't be any TV signals. Competition for the sole cable offerings in about 95 percent of the country will be a satellite package of approximately the same exact price. Those of us in multiple dwelling units will continue to have a choice of one provider, despite regulatory delusions to the contrary.
...
Never mind that there are broad swaths of what used to be broadcast spectrum in the hands of wireless operators that have yet to build them out.

I have to say, she tells it like it is.

We still have analog LP's on 57, 67 and 69 in the LA area. So, what exactly is happening to the spectrum we have already lost?

PinkSplice

12-05-09, 12:09 PM

And in an amazing act of stupidity, Southern Illinois University (of WSIU/WUSI) is seeking a new allotment on channel 48 in Vienna IL. Since the window for new allotments is currently closed, this has virtually zero chance of being approved.

- Trip

Trip, WSIU's digital was on RF 40 prior to transition (from the Tamaroa IL main tower). I was getting it about 30% of the time that I was getting WSIU-8 analog reliably (90+ %) here in STL. Since transition, I have not had one capture of WSIU's digital on RF 8. You can thank KOMU-8 for that, partially. Vienna is quite south of Tamaroa. Sounds like a translator by another name.

A little urban history: KETC and WSIU had a gunfight over who would get the VHF allocation. KETC lost. Now, KETC is on RF 39, with 147 KW ERP, and holding pledge drives every thirty seconds to fund the xmtr. They need to go to at least 200+ KW ERP, and they know it. WSIU got a power increase after transition, but still is a VHF Nightmare.

Trip in VA

12-05-09, 05:39 PM

Poking at the FCC database for a few minutes today, I found three additional 50 kW transmitters in the Atlanta area, these on the former channel 56. Don't know what they're for, but the notices have been filed.

At some point I'll make a page for them, but I have a test today and a computer to reload soon.

50kW 34-03-58.5 84-27-14.1 32.9m Sweat Mountain
50kW 33-44-40.8 84-21-35.7 264.9m Chester Avenue
50kW 34-07-47.9 83-55-55.7 237.7m Buford-Grid

- Trip

Add two more.

50 kW 34-05-01.0 83-19-19.3 358.9m Athens-Hull
50 kW 33-44-22.0 84-00-14.0 346.3m Conyers

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-05-09, 07:34 PM

Sounds like a translator by another name.

Then they should apply for a translator like everyone else. The FCC is not approving new allotments at this time.

- Trip

justalurker

12-05-09, 07:41 PM

Add two more.

50 kW 34-05-01.0 83-19-19.3 358.9m Athens-Hull
50 kW 33-44-22.0 84-00-14.0 346.3m Conyers
Athens-Hull is about 35 miles east of the Buford-Grid site. Conyers is about 21 miles east of the downtown Chester Ave site and 27 miles south of the Buford-Grid site. I'd consider Conyers as a continuation of the ring around Atlanta with Athens being an extension toward South Carolina.

Desert Hawk

12-05-09, 08:11 PM

I don't speak Spanish and therefore don't watch Univision or Telefutura, but I am curious. There is a thread in the HDTV Programming forum about Univision and Telefutura going high definition very soon. It said that Bakersfield will have them in HD on DEc. 14. Currently in Bakersfield Univision is on LP analog channel 39 and Telefutura is on LP analog 31. Univision owns English language MYTV affiliate full power KUVI RF and virtual channel 45. SD only. It has Univision on a subchannel that maps to 39-1 and Telefutura on another subchannel that maps to 31-1. Are they going to flash cut LP 31 and 39 to digital in a little over a week? Aren't LP stations required to give 30 days notice before terminating their analog signal. I haven't noticed any ads in the local newspaper about it. I flipped through all channels last week while setting up my new Samsung HDTV and I didn't see any crawls or anything to the effect of "terminacion de la senal analogico" (I know some words of Spanish, but certainly not enough to watch Spanish language tv). I would like to see the elimination of this last stubbornly clinging vestage of analog broadcasting.

It would be very nice if Spanish language stations would make use of tv's multilanguage capability and broadcast an English audio dub on SAP.

Desert Hawk

12-05-09, 08:20 PM

So statistics show that approximately 15% of the US population uses over the air reception of tv exclusively and another 15% subscribes to cable or satellite but uses OTA part of the time. That means that 30% of the population ever uses OTA and 70% never uses it. If this pipe dream of massive wireless broadband ever comes to pass, I estimate that about 15% of the population would use wireless broadband exclusively for itnernet access, and another 15% would use it part of the time along with wired broadband. So 30% of the population would use it ever and 70% would never use it. So when it comes to allocating spectrum where it will do the most good for the most people, wireless broadband vs OTA tv would essentially be a wash. So let's decide in favor of what is A. free and B. already developed.

BCF68

12-05-09, 10:14 PM

So statistics show that approximately 15% of the US population uses over the air reception of tv exclusively and another 15% subscribes to cable or satellite but uses OTA part of the time. That means that 30% of the population ever uses OTA and 70% never uses it.

By the way the people that say that OTA doesn't matter that 15% is more than every single pay TV provider except Comcast and DirecTv.

If this pipe dream of massive wireless broadband ever comes to pass, I estimate that about 15% of the population would use wireless broadband exclusively for itnernet access,.

As long as the wireless companies insist on 5 GB monthly caps with overage fees ranging from $51.20 - $503 per GB then no you won't even get 15%.

justalurker

12-05-09, 10:38 PM

Are they going to flash cut LP 31 and 39 to digital in a little over a week? Aren't LP stations required to give 30 days notice before terminating their analog signal.
The FCC's website is having some problems so the full authorizations cannot be pulled ... but it appears both stations have flash cuts approved. All they have to do is get it done.

The rules for low power are not the same as full power stations. I don't find where any viewer notice is required, although such things are always a good idea.

Trip in VA

12-05-09, 10:57 PM

I am unaware of any requirement of a 30 day notice for LPTV stations.

I'm told that WUVG's fill-in translator on channel 17 is now on the air, so the flash cuts for the Bakersfield stations may not be far off.

- Trip

Thomas Desmond

12-05-09, 11:06 PM

Anyone can file comments in public proceedings such as this -- But In this case FCC is soliciting comments asking for specific data regarding specific questions they ask about the OTA DTV broadcast service -- While many of the questions asked are probably best answered by Broadcasters, It seems to me well crafted, intelligent comments from OTA users/viewers could be of some interest as well, regarding many of the questions posed ...

If nothing else, it seems that the FCC needs to be reminded that OTA DTV viewers have a stake in the outcome of this proceeding. They seem to have forgotten some old court cases on this matter.

Back in the sixties (during the WLBT Jackson, MS license renewal challenge), the FCC actually ruled that viewers had no standing to comment in or intervene in FCC proceedings. The courts told the FCC otherwise, and in no uncertain terms. The FCC was forced to consider the interests of viewer's in WLBT's service area and accept input on behalf of those viewers -- and WLBT lost its license as a result.

Today, the FCC seems to think that only broadcasters and wireless interests have a stake in how the current TV broadcast spectrum is used. Nothing could be further from the truth -- if you look at the cost of "lifeline basic" service for the 15 to 20 million households that rely on OTA DTV reception today, that's $3 to $4 billion in direct annual costs that we're currently avoiding by using off air reception. Add in the value of equipment that we have purchased to make use of those off-air signals, and that is billions more. Then there is the issue of what is likely to happen to cable/satellite rates if OTA broadcast service is crippled or completely eliminated.

Damned if the FCC should be able to get away with ignoring the interests of viewers...

foxeng

12-06-09, 08:46 AM

Damned if the FCC should be able to get away with ignoring the interests of viewers...

You mean like Congress can?

Trip in VA

12-07-09, 02:10 AM

Two new VHF nightmares this evening.

WZZM-13 in Grand Rapids requests an increase from 16.5 kW to 24.5 kW.

WHYY-12 in Philadelphia is operating at 13.3 kW with a permit to increase to 20 kW on a different directional pattern. They've now sought to increase the power on that new pattern to 30 kW.

I'm not counting this as a VHF nightmare simply because they had planned to do major upgrades prior to the transition.

KOCO-7 in Oklahoma City has a permit to top-mount an omni-directional channel 7 antenna on top of their tower and run it at 48 kW. Once KOAM implements their own nightmare filing with a directional pattern, KOCO wants to increase power up to 65.7 kW.

- Trip

Mizzou!

12-07-09, 01:26 PM

Trip, WSIU's digital was on RF 40 prior to transition (from the Tamaroa IL main tower). I was getting it about 30% of the time that I was getting WSIU-8 analog reliably (90+ %) here in STL. Since transition, I have not had one capture of WSIU's digital on RF 8. You can thank KOMU-8 for that, partially. Vienna is quite south of Tamaroa. Sounds like a translator by another name.

A little urban history: KETC and WSIU had a gunfight over who would get the VHF allocation. KETC lost. Now, KETC is on RF 39, with 147 KW ERP, and holding pledge drives every thirty seconds to fund the xmtr. They need to go to at least 200+ KW ERP, and they know it. WSIU got a power increase after transition, but still is a VHF Nightmare.

That's interesting, considering WSIU is at .49 % interference into KOMU in Gasconade County which is in the Columbia DMA which will probably kill any chance of a power increase for KOMU. Doesn't St. Louis already have a PBS station?

By the way, WSIU got their increase prior to June 12, 2009.

iowegian3

12-08-09, 12:00 AM

If nothing else, it seems that the FCC needs to be reminded that OTA DTV viewers have a stake in the outcome of this proceeding. They seem to have forgotten some old court cases on this matter.

Back in the sixties (during the WLBT Jackson, MS license renewal challenge), the FCC actually ruled that viewers had no standing to comment in or intervene in FCC proceedings. The courts told the FCC otherwise, and in no uncertain terms. The FCC was forced to consider the interests of viewer's in WLBT's service area and accept input on behalf of those viewers -- and WLBT lost its license as a result.

Today, the FCC seems to think that only broadcasters and wireless interests have a stake in how the current TV broadcast spectrum is used. Nothing could be further from the truth -- if you look at the cost of "lifeline basic" service for the 15 to 20 million households that rely on OTA DTV reception today, that's $3 to $4 billion in direct annual costs that we're currently avoiding by using off air reception. Add in the value of equipment that we have purchased to make use of those off-air signals, and that is billions more. Then there is the issue of what is likely to happen to cable/satellite rates if OTA broadcast service is crippled or completely eliminated.

Damned if the FCC should be able to get away with ignoring the interests of viewers...

Well said. I've been on a soapbox occassionally about seriously underpowered DTV stations post transition, where nearly half of the former analog coverage area has been abandoned, with no OTA alternatives.

Stations that leave significant areas without service should, IMO, be prepared to show that a very small minority in the affected area expresses interest in receiving the station (say less than 3%). Otherwise, said station would be in big trouble. Back to the wee minority situation here's an example: Pre 6/12, DINK-TV station had 20 counties covered in the analog service area, with only 12 of those counties actually in the home DMA. After 6/12, DTV coverage shrinks down to just the 12 counties in the DMA. Of the 8 counties that are orphaned, three counties are put into a white area. But nearly all viewers in the three orphaned white area counties are watching stations from Big City. And those three counties are in Big City's DMA. Is it fair for DINK-TV to be required to restore coverage to those 3 counties?

kb7oeb

12-08-09, 12:22 AM

Are there any adjacent full power digital stations?

Dave Loudin

12-08-09, 07:18 AM

Well said. I've been on a soapbox occassionally about seriously underpowered DTV stations post transition, where nearly half of the former analog coverage area has been abandoned, with no OTA alternatives.

Stations that leave significant areas without service should, IMO, be prepared to show that a very small minority in the affected area expresses interest in receiving the station (say less than 3%). Otherwise, said station would be in big trouble. Back to the wee minority situation here's an example: Pre 6/12, DINK-TV station had 20 counties covered in the analog service area, with only 12 of those counties actually in the home DMA. After 6/12, DTV coverage shrinks down to just the 12 counties in the DMA. Of the 8 counties that are orphaned, three counties are put into a white area. But nearly all viewers in the three orphaned white area counties are watching stations from Big City. And those three counties are in Big City's DMA. Is it fair for DINK-TV to be required to restore coverage to those 3 counties?

Are you sure that the station willingly left audience, and potential revenue, on the table? Some DTV allotments ended up not replicating the analog service because of how the transition process worked. Please see what I wrote in the Wash/Balt. thread here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17585837#post17585837)

The FCC did try to force stations to fully build out their transition DTV facilities by threatening to remove the right to replicate the analog Grade B service area in the channel selection process. Subsequent gain/loss showings for allocation purposes, would be based on the transition DTV facility instead. Beyond that, the real requirement for any station is to serve the community of license, not a DMA.

Falcon_77

12-08-09, 11:33 AM

Are there any adjacent full power digital stations?

Quite a few. In LA alone, we have:

28/29
31/32/33/34/35/36
38/39
41/42/43
47/48/49

arxaw

12-08-09, 11:59 AM

Are there any adjacent full power digital stations?We have:
9, 10
18, 19
27, 28
43, 44

narkspud

12-08-09, 12:15 PM

Quite a few. In LA alone, we have:

28/29
31/32/33/34/35/36
38/39
41/42/43
47/48/49

It gets better with the low powers:
7/8/9
23/24
38/39/40*/41/42/43
46*/47/48/49/50/51

(*I don't think these guys are on the air yet.)

Mizzou!

12-08-09, 01:27 PM

Well said. I've been on a soapbox occassionally about seriously underpowered DTV stations post transition, where nearly half of the former analog coverage area has been abandoned, with no OTA alternatives.

Stations that leave significant areas without service should, IMO, be prepared to show that a very small minority in the affected area expresses interest in receiving the station (say less than 3%). Otherwise, said station would be in big trouble. Back to the wee minority situation here's an example: Pre 6/12, DINK-TV station had 20 counties covered in the analog service area, with only 12 of those counties actually in the home DMA. After 6/12, DTV coverage shrinks down to just the 12 counties in the DMA. Of the 8 counties that are orphaned, three counties are put into a white area. But nearly all viewers in the three orphaned white area counties are watching stations from Big City. And those three counties are in Big City's DMA. Is it fair for DINK-TV to be required to restore coverage to those 3 counties?

The interesting thing about "DINK-TV" is that neither DirecTV or Dish have DINK as a LIL. The surrounding DMA's have satellite carriage, and usurp "DINK" as an XXX affiliate in those counties, and most cable outlets carry both DINK and the big city stations (as significantly viewed). DINK has no ability to expand the DMA to those counties as the majority of viewers are subscribed to pay service.

If the tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it kinda deal. The white area folks don't have any over the air signal (which DINK had to compensate for when they tried and finally got a CP for a tall tower), but were allowed to abandon in the DTV transition. The latest bandwith reclamation efforts at the FCC make me think that they believe all cable and satellite headends are fed by fiber or microwave, and that the broadcast signal only goes to the home. Perhaps the free to air television system that the FCC required all stations to convert to digital is not what the public wants.

SnellKrell

12-08-09, 01:31 PM

Are there any adjacent full power digital stations?

In the New York DMA there are many - hope I have them all:

7/8
23/24
27/28/29/30/31
47/48/49

Trip in VA

12-09-09, 06:37 AM

I was very, very sick last night. I think it's a flu, but who knows. All I know is that the money I was put in it last night seems better this morning. Have to wait and see.

As for FCC updates, KUTF in Salt Lake City should be close to building, and KQUP had their antenna damaged in deliver. So who knows when those signals will be coming on the air.

Finally, a VHF nightmare. WIBW in Topeka now seeks a fill-in translator on channel 44, same as their pre-transition digital channel.

- Trip

arxaw

12-09-09, 08:16 AM

...Finally, a VHF nightmare. WIBW in Topeka now seeks a fill-in translator on channel 44, same as their pre-transition digital channel.
Trip, I hope you get over whateveritisyouhave, soon!

No wonder WIBW is begging for a translator...
http://www.wibw.com/blogs/ralph/39694552.html

Tschmidt

12-09-09, 09:33 AM

All I know is that the money I was put in it last night seems better this morning.
Hope you feel better soon so you don't have to feed any more money into the flu :)

/tom

Trip in VA

12-09-09, 09:39 AM

Heh, well, you can see how out of it I was when I posted that message.

I'm feeling better now, though I've been sipping on water for a few hours. I figure milk isn't very good for it, and the Ginger Ale was so carbonated that it wasn't going very quickly.

I'd love to go back to sleep but as soon as I lie down, my back starts to hurt. My mom suggests I flip the mattress but I don't know that I can do that...

- Trip

preludejtstyle

12-09-09, 11:52 AM

Might be posting in the wrong section:

Whats the channel for the TV Guide Digital Host station for the Dayton, ohio area?

It used to be WHIO channel 7, however it's not being updated anymore. Did the channel change?

Larry Kenney

12-09-09, 02:47 PM

Are there any adjacent full power digital stations?

The San Francisco Bay Area has lots of adjacent stations.

On Sutro Tower: 29/30, 33/34, 38/39, 43/44/45

I live 3/4 of a mile from Sutro and with a CM4228 can receive adjacent channels 35 and 46 from Walnut Grove 65 miles away.

On San Bruno Mountain (5 miles away): 27/28, 40*/41

*=presently LP analog going digital on same channel

Mt. Allison and Monument Peak: 49/50/51 (a translator on 48 has a CP)

Larry
SF

arxaw

12-09-09, 03:33 PM

preludejtstyle

12-09-09, 05:41 PM

that site still list's it as channel 7. is it out of date?

arxaw

12-09-09, 05:54 PM

Trip usually keeps his site as up to date as possible. Your best bet is the Dayton thread, which I see you've posted in. Or contact the station directly.

kb7oeb

12-09-09, 07:57 PM

We just had a -CD move to another channel to get away from a full power station, anyway I was just wondering, thanks for the replies.

coyoteaz

12-09-09, 09:30 PM

Adjacent channels aren't a problem, adjacent channels with 18dB difference in power are. Most AGC circuits can't cope with a difference like that and cycle all over the place, resulting in lots of errors when demodulated.

Falcon_77

12-09-09, 10:16 PM

The Rabbit-Ear Wars

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574583750148917092.html

For the truth is, broadcast offers impressive economies for distributing rich media content compared to the Internet. An infinity of users can be served by a single bitstream. It doesn't matter how many receivers tune into a TV broadcast. It never gets overloaded.

The article talks about Sezmi as well, but they have been rather picky about accepting trial applicants in the LA area from what I've seen. I was rejected for not being in the "service area," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Putting everything on a wireless IP network, including broadcast video, doesn't make sense if the same content is delivered to thousands of simultaneous viewers. I have to believe there are still benefits to broadcasting.

The "subchannels that nobody watches," comment was a bit annoying, but more so is the omission of mobile DTV. I don't think the sarcastic comment about the FCC mandating OTA on cell phones implies knowledge of mobile DTV by the author.

Tschmidt

12-09-09, 10:49 PM

The article talks about Sezmi as well, but they have been rather picky about accepting trial applicants in the LA area from what I've seen.
I'd never head of Sezmi but it seems to be a useful way to multicast/broadcast information to a large number of users. Doesn't seem all that different from what traditional broadcasters are already doing.

The FCC and Mr. Levin are correct (and brave) in pointing out the need for a market mechanism to guide spectrum to its highest and best uses.
I cringe whenever I read comments like that. Not everything can be resolved by market mechanisms. How does public service fit into the equation, educational institutions? What about HAMs, I guess they need not apply.

I like the idea of Whitespace if it can be made to work. I think the transition from analog to digital TV is too new to radically alter the regulatory landscape. Lets wait a while and see how broadcasters make use of the new technology.

/tom

Trip in VA

12-10-09, 12:17 PM

WCPO's request to relocate from channel 10 to 22 was approved today.

- Trip

Falcon_77

12-11-09, 12:19 PM

WSYX's request to move to 48 (from 13) has been approved.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2582A1.pdf

coyoteaz

12-11-09, 06:43 PM

Falcon_77

12-11-09, 10:04 PM

Trip, any chance you can make the column headers in the market listings on RE clickable to change the sort order? Having the listings sorted by physical channel makes it easier to see at a glance what kind of VHF/UHF distribution a market has, among other things.

The spreadsheet does this, if you are interested. See my signature for a link. Just adjust the filter buttons to your preference.

The drawback is that it's in Excel format. I don't know if the viewer allows auto-filter sort functions.

iowegian3

12-11-09, 10:25 PM

The interesting thing about "DINK-TV" is that neither DirecTV or Dish have DINK as a LIL. The surrounding DMA's have satellite carriage, and usurp "DINK" as an XXX affiliate in those counties, and most cable outlets carry both DINK and the big city stations (as significantly viewed). DINK has no ability to expand the DMA to those counties as the majority of viewers are subscribed to pay service.

If the tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it kinda deal. The white area folks don't have any over the air signal (which DINK had to compensate for when they tried and finally got a CP for a tall tower), but were allowed to abandon in the DTV transition. The latest bandwith reclamation efforts at the FCC make me think that they believe all cable and satellite headends are fed by fiber or microwave, and that the broadcast signal only goes to the home. Perhaps the free to air television system that the FCC required all stations to convert to digital is not what the public wants.

Now, there's the case of the other five counties or so of DINK, all right,KTVO that spills outside of its home DMA into part of the Quincy-Hannibal DMA, which historically received ABC OTA from KTVO before DTV. Yes, ABC OTA is now available on a subchannel of KHQA in the Quincy-Hannibal DMA. But, is that the same as having ABC on the main channel?

As I sit here stubbornly watching our 10 year old Sanyo 13" I'd say absoulutely yes! But for something resembling HDTV it seems the jury's out.

Complicating the picture is the recent case of WPGA-TV in the Macon GA market, as reported by TVBR.com (http://www.rbr.com/tv-cable/19258.html) . ABC is pulling its affiliation w/ WPGA in favor of being carried on a subchannel of the local Fox station. WPGA gets the shaft by ABC and Cox Cable, the primary cable provider in the market. Appears as far as ABC is concerned, sub-channel status beats primary. Should add that WPGA OTA is currently operating at a level just over translator/LPTV.

Back to the midwest, the KTVO mess gets messier with the fact that KHQA and KTVO are now co-owned. Meanwhile, the other station in KTVO's home DMA of Ottumwa-Kirksville is KYOU, an original Fox affiliate. At the strong urging of the Fox network, the owners of KYOU built a tower just outside of the Ottumwa-Kirksville DMA to cover the south half of the Cedar Rapids-Waterloo market. Both stations remain hamstrung by Dish and DirecTv's refusal to date to put Ottumwa-Kirksville on their services.

It does indeed look like OTA service is something the public doesn't even care about or there would be a lot more people commenting on these problems.

Thomas Desmond

12-12-09, 12:40 AM

ABC is pulling its affiliation w/ WPGA in favor of being carried on a subchannel of the local Fox station. WPGA gets the shaft by ABC and Cox Cable, the primary cable provider in the market. Appears as far as ABC is concerned, sub-channel status beats primary. Should add that WPGA OTA is currently operating at a level just over translator/LPTV.

The reports that I've seen are that WPGA dumped ABC due to objections over the raciness of some of ABC's prime time programs. If that's correct, it wasn't ABC that made the choice to move to a subchannel, but instead it was the choice of WPGA.

dline

12-12-09, 04:04 AM

It does indeed look like OTA service is something the public doesn't even care about or there would be a lot more people commenting on these problems.Obviously the attitude toward OTA is going to vary based on what has historically been available. Ottumwa, for instance, has historically had just ABC, Fox, and whatever fuzzy pictures its viewers could get from translators or a strong antenna pointed at Des Moines or Cedar Rapids. In most other places, the expectations are going to be a little higher, and indeed enough viewers lost WOI-TV ("ABC 5") reception in Des Moines after June 12 to convince its owners to go through the expense of applying for and building a fill-in translator to serve those viewers. If nobody cared, I doubt WOI, WLS, WVUE, KWWL and countless other stations would have gone through the trouble of asking the FCC for permission to build better facilities, let alone build them.

Stanislav

12-12-09, 05:07 AM

The reports that I've seen are that WPGA dumped ABC due to objections over the raciness of some of ABC's prime time programs. If that's correct, it wasn't ABC that made the choice to move to a subchannel, but instead it was the choice of WPGA.

That is, indeed, the case -- the head honcho at WPGA is quite religious and conservative, and after a handful of complaints about certain "racy" scenes in ABC shows (including some LGBT content and storylines), he chose not to renew the affiliation and is apparently taking the station in a more Christian-oriented direction. Interestingly, from what I read, he acted rather impulsively on the basis of a very small handful of second-hand complaints, not on anything he personally witnessed (he seemed to have been blissfully unaware of what his own station was broadcasting). So, lacking another available full-power station in the market, ABC has no choice except to either affiliate with an LPTV (limiting coverage) or go the subchannel route on another full-power station.

Trip in VA

12-12-09, 10:20 AM

First of all, I'm home this weekend after spending a few hours in the hospital yesterday. I felt an odd pain in my lower back which was in the area of my kidneys, and deep breaths made my chest hurt. My dad though "pneumonia" and told me to go to the hospital. Then they took me home.

Apparently, nothing serious, it's just a severe viral thing, and he explained away everything as part of the virus.

Trip, any chance you can make the column headers in the market listings on RE clickable to change the sort order? Having the listings sorted by physical channel makes it easier to see at a glance what kind of VHF/UHF distribution a market has, among other things.

Remind me again in about a week. I'll see if I can come up with something helpful for you. If nothing else I can add a note to the heading of each market noting how many VHF stations there are.

That is, indeed, the case -- the head honcho at WPGA is quite religious and conservative, and after a handful of complaints about certain "racy" scenes in ABC shows (including some LGBT content and storylines), he chose not to renew the affiliation and is apparently taking the station in a more Christian-oriented direction. Interestingly, from what I read, he acted rather impulsively on the basis of a very small handful of second-hand complaints, not on anything he personally witnessed (he seemed to have been blissfully unaware of what his own station was broadcasting). So, lacking another available full-power station in the market, ABC has no choice except to either affiliate with an LPTV (limiting coverage) or go the subchannel route on another full-power station.

Yeah, good thing he's not keeping Ellen or the Desperate Housewives reruns. Oh, wait, he is.

I don't believe for one second it's got anything to do with the content of the shows, I think it has everything to do with money.

- Trip

Desert Hawk

12-12-09, 04:09 PM

The FCC's website shows that 3ABN now has a construction permit for 2,060 watts on channel 7 in Bakersfield. How did they convince the FCC to allow them 2KW+ for a digital LP on VHF? Also, this will cause interference with KAIL channel 7 in Fresno in nothern Kern County and southern Kings and Tulare counties. Anybody in those areas is going to need a highly directional antenna to get either of those stations (and a rotor to get both). I think 3ABN should flash cut analog 8 instead of taking 7. The closest full power 8s are in San Diego and Salinas. Visalia also has a low power 8, but two LPs shouldn't be as much of a problem as a full power and a LP. 3ABN is also applying for a digitla LP on RF17. They currently have analog LPs on 8 and 24. WHY DO THEY NEED 4 FREAKING CHANNELS ALL SIMULCASTING IN LITTLE OL' BAKERSFIELD???!!! 2 digitals and 2 analogs? Get real!

iowegian3

12-12-09, 05:16 PM

With WPGA, figured there was another side to the story. Popular culture and management beliefs collide. Indeed, there's a lot of questionable content these days that would cause internal conflict for local management. What to do without "throwing baby out with the bathwater" as with WPGA? Perhaps educate viewers on how to use V-chip functions to block TV-14 content, maybe put a black armband "bug" on one of the lower corners.

LPTV: There should be NO digital companion channels allowed. All LPTVs should either be analog or flash-cut to digital.

Trip in VA

12-13-09, 07:56 PM

Trip, any chance you can make the column headers in the market listings on RE clickable to change the sort order? Having the listings sorted by physical channel makes it easier to see at a glance what kind of VHF/UHF distribution a market has, among other things.

How about a set of statistics about each market on the right side? I should have code uploaded to implement it in a few minutes.

(There's only so much sleeping one can do, even when sick.)

- Trip

coyoteaz

12-13-09, 10:34 PM

Nice addition, but sorting the list would still be helpful to see adjacent channels. I would think that Javascript can do it, but I'm no web designer.

Trip in VA

12-13-09, 10:46 PM

Nice addition, but sorting the list would still be helpful to see adjacent channels. I would think that Javascript can do it, but I'm no web designer.

Let me stare at it for a few minutes.

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-13-09, 11:02 PM

Trip in VA

12-13-09, 11:52 PM

Trying to do those statistics was dragging the server to a crawl so I'm eliminating them until I figure out how to get around that.

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-14-09, 12:44 AM

Little FCC action tonight, KOTA-2, now at 18.2 kW on their omni, wants to increase to 45 kW.

- Trip

spokybob

12-14-09, 01:25 AM

So, lacking another available full-power station in the market, ABC has no choice except to either affiliate with an LPTV (limiting coverage) or go the subchannel route on another full-power station.ABC could eliminate the offensive shows. V and LOST are good examples of what can be done on PrimeTime TV. Just my own opinion of course.

Trip in VA

12-14-09, 11:57 AM

Larry Kenney

12-14-09, 04:53 PM

It's not pretty, but it'll do what you want. Just append

&sorting=physical

to whatever listing page you want sorted by physical channel and it will be done. For example:

http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?mktid=5&sorting=physical

- Trip

Interesting... using 5 gives you Market 6 - Dallas and using 6 gives you Market 5 - San Francisco.

Hope you get rid of that flu bug soon, Trip.

Larry
SF

Trip in VA

12-14-09, 04:54 PM

The market ID numbers don't align with the Ranks. They used to align with the Nielsen DMA numbers almost exactly as that's what I was using when it was put together, but now seem much more randomized. :)

I'm doing much better today and intend to go back to school tomorrow.

- Trip

Sammer

12-14-09, 07:31 PM

The Rabbit-Ear Wars

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574583750148917092.html
Why are Blair Levin and the FCC now making a direct attack on free local television? Is there technology to deliver free television another way. Sure, a free subscription for national "broadcasts" of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, CW, ION, MyN, TeleFutura, Telemundo, Univision, plus about a dozen more national networks all delivered by satellite or cable. Add to that say 600 or so "locals" (with the country divided into 100 or so spot beamed areas) with each area receiving a half dozen or so "locals" to provide local news, educational television, etc. It would of course mean the end of television broadcasting as we know it including retransmission consent, and the two DBS and all the cable and telco TV companies would be expected as part of their civic duty (coerced if necessary) to provide the free subscriptions. The question is why go to all the trouble just so some shareholders of telecommunications stock can get even richer?

PinkSplice

12-14-09, 08:20 PM

That's interesting, considering WSIU is at .49 % interference into KOMU in Gasconade County which is in the Columbia DMA which will probably kill any chance of a power increase for KOMU. Doesn't St. Louis already have a PBS station?

By the way, WSIU got their increase prior to June 12, 2009.

KETC is the STL PBS station (RF 39, 147 KW ERP). Yes, I know about the pre-transition power increase. It didn't make a difference.

With WSIU, I didn't even bother looking for any VHF DTV stations in my area... :)

ChrisC47

12-14-09, 11:19 PM

Created a page for them. http://www.rabbitears.info/echostar.php?request=list

Thanks!

Stanislav

12-15-09, 05:16 AM

The question is why go to all the trouble just so some shareholders of telecommunications stock can get even richer?

You just answered your own question. Of course it's all about the rich getting richer. It has nothing to do with serving the public, a concept that has become so anachronistic as to be almost laughable. Just look at the proposed health care legislation, which has become gradually more gutted and ineffective, and tilted heavily towards maintaining the dominance of the insurance gods and big pharma. If anything, it will hurt far more people than it helps, forcing millions to buy into the scam that can't afford it, even with the woefully inadequate subsidies. Democrats and Republicans alike worship at the altar of big money, and "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" is just a flowery phrase in grade school civics texts.

Sammer

12-15-09, 01:38 PM

Of course it's all about the rich getting richer. It has nothing to do with serving the public, a concept that has become so anachronistic as to be almost laughable.
So you're saying that our government is now corrupt. With both the broadcasters and public having spent a tremendous amount of money and effort on the digital transition and the ink barely dry on the legislation that postponed the date it does reek of either insanity or corruption that the government would now even consider auctioning off channels 26 through 51. That's just over half the current 49 channels.

Talk about VHF nightmares, imagine what it will be like with every television station in the country crammed into no more than 24 channels including 7 that are already shared with land mobile. Admittedly the broadcasters should now say they're willing to give up 4 of the 5 low VHF channels but the only current UHF channels that should be negotiable are 14-20 and only in regards to removing land mobile. You liberals should also forget about greater diversity in media ownership because auctioning off more television channels will lead to even more media consolidation and less local, minority, and women ownership. I suppose the silver lining would be no worries about white space devices cause there will not be any white spaces anywhere even remotely close to a major city.

dline

12-15-09, 02:42 PM

Channel change: Greensboro-High Point, NC:

FCC issues R&O moving WGHP from 8 to 35.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2594A1.pdf

"According to CTNC [Community Television of North Carolina, LLC, licensee of WGHP], following its termination of analog television service on June 12, 2009, and commencement of digital operations on channel 8, 'a sizeable number of the Station’s viewers no longer could receive the Station’s over-the-air signal.' CTNC was granted Special Temporary Authority to operate on channels 8 and 35, and '[a]fter analyzing the situation, reviewing field test results, and monitoring service for the past months, [it] has concluded that viewers best would be served by the Station operating on the UHF channel rather than the VHF channel . . ..' "

(As I've said before, people DO care about this or this whole proceeding would be fruitless for both the station and the FCC.)

Sammer

12-15-09, 03:35 PM

In most other places, the expectations are going to be a little higher, and indeed enough viewers lost WOI-TV ("ABC 5") reception in Des Moines after June 12 to convince its owners to go through the expense of applying for and building a fill-in translator to serve those viewers. If nobody cared, I doubt WOI, WLS, WVUE, KWWL and countless other stations would have gone through the trouble of asking the FCC for permission to build better facilities, let alone build them.
Yes but part of the problem are the stations who haven't dealt effectively enough with reception problems either because as long they have cable carriage they don't care about OTA viewers or they simply don't have the money to do so. Of course there are also stations who are still awaiting FCC approval for their plans.

dline

12-15-09, 04:41 PM

Yes but part of the problem are the stations who haven't dealt effectively enough with reception problems either because as long they have cable carriage they don't care about OTA viewers or they simply don't have the money to do so. Of course there are also stations who are still awaiting FCC approval for their plans.I do admit, there may be some stations which feel that way, but this thread is full of stories of stations who are dealing with these issues.

Truth is, we never really dealt with VHF digital on such a widespread scale before the transition. All a lot of us really had was our experience with easy rabbit-ear reception of these stations in analog, and the FCC's assurance that "x" amount of power in digital would provide the same coverage as 100 kW or 316 kW or whatever of analog VHF. Now we're in the real world and learning from the hard lessons it's teaching us.

arxaw

12-15-09, 04:51 PM

Truth is, we never really dealt with VHF digital on such a widespread scale before the transition...The last city I lived in has had VHF digital since the beginning. And it never has worked as well for DTV as UHF does.

dewster1977

12-15-09, 10:30 PM

The last city I lived in has had VHF digital since the beginning. And it never has worked as well for DTV as UHF does.

In my case it is just the opposite, I get the VHF's from DC, Baltimore and Harrisburg, but only 1 UHF From Baltimore and on occasion 1 from DC.

mgpt6

12-16-09, 07:19 PM

Trip - do you have a list of what channels may be used for new full power digital TV stations in the markets? jw. thanks

Trip in VA

12-16-09, 07:31 PM

There are, for the most part, no vacant allotments in the new digital table of allotments. Any new allotments would have to be added by way of a petition for rulemaking. However, the FCC is not currently accepting those petitions, and has not announced when a window for them might be opened.

- Trip

rdvegas

12-16-09, 08:40 PM

Digital remapping:
I've heard from engineers that the FCC will not allow a station to use any channel for digital remapping other than their current digital assignment or the former analog assignment. Yet I see plenty of examples of stations displaying to channels that are neither of the above examples. Channel 1 in the San Francisco market and 3ABN affiliates using channel 73 are two such cases. There are even a couple of stations remapping their sub-channels to several channels.

I don't think the FCC has a firm ruling on what remapping a station can use.

Let the stations decide on where to remap their signals, but have them ID occassionally their actual RF and virtual channels. We could then see some very clever use of the spectrm as it pertains to placing a station elsewhere from their current RF or former analog channel number.

Trip in VA

12-16-09, 09:40 PM

I was told that the FCC allowed the use of 1-1 for KAXT-LD in San Francisco since both 22-1 (former analog) and 42-1 (current digital) were occupied.

Stations are allowed to use channels above 69 in specific circumstances as outlined in the PSIP spec.

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-16-09, 10:08 PM

Because I know we like oddities here, check out this thing I stumbled on while poking at SiliconDust today:

http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/lineup_web/US:81303#lineup_1284349

I'll be trying to track down which licenses go with which station at some later point, but the general area is Durango/Cortez/southwest Colorado. Check out some of the interesting stuff they're broadcasting. TXCN, CBC, Pentagon, RTV, ION...

- Trip

N5XZS

12-16-09, 11:13 PM

I am shocked that you can get CBC news by living in Durango, CO!!:eek:

It's a shame we can't get it here in Albuquerque's TV market, even though Albuquerque's DMA cover that areas.

It's looks like Durango's TV viewers are damm lucky to get that kind of free exotic TV programings!:o

12-16-09

Trip in VA

12-17-09, 03:07 PM

I think we've got another one, though I don't know which channel they're moving to. WBIQ seems to be giving up on channel 10. At 3 kW, I'm not surprised.

EDIT: I think it's channel 39 at 1000 kW.

EDIT2: Here's a link to the pattern: http://www.rabbitears.info/oddsandends.php?request=ant_pat&ant_id=97184&rotation=0&erp=1000

So I get that they're protecting WSB in Atlanta to the east, but what's with the null to the northwest?

- Trip

Falcon_77

12-17-09, 03:27 PM

I am shocked that you can get CBC news by living in Durango, CO!!:eek:

I'd like to get it here in the LA area.

The lack of a free-to-view 24 hour news network is a significant omission in this country.

SnellKrell

12-17-09, 03:36 PM

Trip in VA

12-17-09, 03:37 PM

That's the pattern for the channel 39 though. Can't be protecting a channel 10.

Could they be protecting WSFG-LD 38 in Berry AL for some reason?

- Trip

SnellKrell

12-17-09, 03:38 PM

Misunderstood!

coyoteaz

12-17-09, 07:07 PM

Looks like some pretty good sized hills in that direction with not a lot of population. Maybe they just don't want to waste a bunch of power broadcasting to no one?

Trip in VA

12-17-09, 07:10 PM

Then they could apply for that when they file for the construction permit. I would want to protect the population in the allotment even if it was not ultimately built.

- Trip

Desert Hawk

12-17-09, 07:43 PM

BCF68

12-17-09, 09:10 PM

In Bakersfield KBAK RF33 carries CBS in HD on virtual 29-1. and simulcasts co-owned KBFX-CA FOX analog 58 on a subchannel which maps to virtual 58-2. KUVI RF45 carries MYTV (finally now in HD) on virtual 45-1 and simulcasts co-owned LP Telefutura analog 31 on virtual 31-1 and LP Univision analog 39 on virtual 39-1. There are probably lots of similar situations where LPs are simulcast on subchannels of co-owned full power stations and map to the LPs analog channel.

And I can guarantee you those subchannels are NOT in HD. Or are compressed all to hell. A channel with the main and subchannel both in HD and equal splitting the bandwidth means each channel is getting only 9 Mbps which would be great for SD, but horrible for HD.

Desert Hawk

12-17-09, 09:25 PM

Those subchannels are not in HD. A post on the Univision HD thread said that Bakersfield was supposed to get Telefutura and Univision in HD last Monday. It didn't happen. LP 31 and 39 are still in analog. I wonder if they are planning to flash cut them to digital soon. I hope they don't try to cram 3 HD programs on one RF channel. but I am to the point where practically nothing can surprise me.

N5XZS

12-17-09, 11:04 PM

Here's the FCC's database on oddball Durango's in a Albuquerque DMA that Trip provided the channel listing.:)

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

Makes you wonder, if these stations realy exist carrying the CBC news channel?

12-17-09

Trip in VA

12-17-09, 11:13 PM

Not Durango, Cortez.

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-17-09, 11:27 PM

Here's something helpful for you, N5XZS: http://www.swcotv.org/DigitalTV.htm

- Trip

Larry Kenney

12-18-09, 04:10 AM

Here's something helpful for you, N5XZS: http://www.swcotv.org/DigitalTV.htm

- Trip
Wow, that's impressive! Check out the photo page for some great antenna pix.

Larry
SF

N5XZS

12-18-09, 11:43 AM

Thanks Trip in VA,

For the new link!!:)

12-18-09

Falcon_77

12-18-09, 01:11 PM

PMCM TV, LLC. Denied request of PMCM TV, LLC to reallocate channel 2 from Jackson, Wyoming to Wilmington, Delaware, and channel 3 from Ely, Nevada to Middletown Township, New Jersey. Action by: Chief, Media Bureau by LETTER. (DA No. 09-2603).

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2603A1.pdf

The technical advantages of analog VHF channels that existed at the time Section 331 was
adopted, however, no longer exist in the current digital environment. Lower VHF channels 2-6 are not
optimal spectrum for digital operations, as they “are subject to a number of technical penalties, including higher ambient noise levels due to leaky power lines, vehicle ignition systems, and other impulse noise sources and interference to and from FM radio service.” Since June 12, 2009, when all full power television stations were required to cease analog operations, a number of television stations in urbanized areas have requested the substitution of a UHF channel for their assigned post-transition high VHF channel 7-13, citing reception problems with the VHF channel. Nevertheless, Congress has not yet repealed Section 331. Therefore, consistent with its mandate that the Commission allot at least one VHF channel to each State, if technically feasible, the Bureau today initiates rulemaking proceedings to allot channel 4 to Atlantic City, New Jersey and channel 5 to Seaford, Delaware.

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, SEAFORD, DELAWARE. Proposed allotment of channel 5 to Seaford, Delaware. (Dkt No. RM-11586 09-230 ).

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2605A1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS, ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY. Proposed allotment of channel 4 to Atlantic City, New Jersey. (Dkt No. RM-11587 09-231 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 12/17/2009 by NPRM. (DA No. 09-2606).

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2606A1.pdf

The State of Delaware currently does not have a very high frequency (“VHF”) commercial
television channel allotment. In order to fulfill the mandate that the Commission allot at least one VHF
channel to each state, if technically feasible, the Commission is waiving the freeze on the filing of new
DTV allotments to initiate this proceeding and to advance the allocation policies of Section 331(a) of
the Act.

Falcon_77

12-18-09, 03:46 PM

Is the FCC proposing to allot 4 and 5 simply because it is higher up than 2 and 3 and subject to less interference?

Could this same company apply for 4 and 5, instead of 2 and 3 or is that a different issue since they wouldn't be moving existing channels?

In any event this rule is looking pretty silly in the DTV world. It's now VHF which is causing populations to be undeserved, more than UHF. At least in LOS urban/sub-urban areas.

foxeng

12-18-09, 04:22 PM

Is the FCC proposing to allot 4 and 5 simply because it is higher up than 2 and 3 and subject to less interference?

Yes.

Could this same company apply for 4 and 5, instead of 2 and 3 or is that a different issue since they wouldn't be moving existing channels?

Don't think so, but I am not up on this rule to start with. I know of several AM's that have done this and I don't believe they moved on the same channel.

In any event this rule is looking pretty silly in the DTV world. It's now VHF which is causing populations to be undeserved, more than UHF. At least in LOS urban/sub-urban areas.

The FCC stated that in their ruling to deny.

Trip in VA

12-18-09, 05:13 PM

If I find some time, I plan to file comments on these. Specifically on the Atlantic City one, suggesting they allocate channel 10 rather than than channel 4.

I rather like it. I bet PMCM is less than pleased. Wonder if they'll appeal?

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-18-09, 05:49 PM

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/441031-WTVE_Tests_SFN_For_Mobile_DTV.php?rssid=20102

I had noticed WTVE added Mobile DTV, but hadn't realized they were doing it on all 8 DTS transmitters.

- Trip

Stanislav

12-18-09, 06:51 PM

Could this same company apply for 4 and 5, instead of 2 and 3 or is that a different issue since they wouldn't be moving existing channels?

Given as the whole concept was dreamed up for the purpose of accessing two of the largest TV markets (NYC and Philly), I don't think they'd be as keen to get the newly proposed allocations, which are rather far from the markets they want to hit. (Middletown NJ and Wilmington DE were ideally situated for what they want to do; Atlantic City and Seaford, not so much.) I don't think they even care about OTA reception -- they just want must-carry status on cable, and I'm pretty sure the new allocations would be too far for must-carry in NYC and Philly.

Sammer

12-18-09, 07:17 PM

I don't think they even care about OTA reception -- they just want must-carry status on cable, and I'm pretty sure the new allocations would be too far for must-carry in NYC and Philly.
Atlantic City is in the Philly DMA and a station licensed to it with the right tower location could get must-carry status for a considerable population there. Seaford is apparently in the Salisbury, MD DMA and I doubt cable carriage in that market is what they had in mind.

PA_MainyYak

12-18-09, 08:54 PM

SnellKrell

12-18-09, 08:58 PM

Trip in VA

12-18-09, 10:30 PM

I'm glad I'm here where the power and Internet are reliable, rather than home. (http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs108.snc3/15545_1268034551992_1563660045_30693045_7023651_n.jpg)

Home's not bad until the weather gets bad. If the Phenix tower loses power, it has 20 minutes on a consumer UPS before it dies thus killing my Internet.

- Trip

justalurker

12-18-09, 10:52 PM

Reading the petition to deny, it seems the FCC is agreeing with PMCM's argument that NJ and DE are entitled to a VHF each, but that PMCM is going to have to get in line with every other interested applicant for the new allotments, which was what PMCM was trying to avoid.Exactly. By attempting a long distance move of the allotments they were trying to jump to the head of the line ... with two new allotment anyone and everyone interested in serving those two communities will have an "equal" chance to bid on them (with the usual credits for women/minority/etc ownership).

It will come down to who has the most cash to buy each channel instead of who first had the intestinal fortitude to try to grab them without allotment.

Stanislav

12-19-09, 04:45 AM

The entitlement for each state to have a minimum of 1 commercial V station is based on outdated lawmaking that should be expunged!

It was a congressional ploy perpetrated by representatives who felt that their states were being shortchanged! And that was when having a V meant something. Today, to most, it's an albatross!

Well, that was the whole rationale behind the strategy of the applicant -- it's outmoded and irrelevant now, but still on the books, and they were trying to paint the FCC into a corner by exploiting that obscure and neglected provision.

I guess the reasoning behind the FCC's proposal to drop in a couple of other VHF allocations to satisfy the requirement is that it's easier to do that than to change the law. It was a congressional mandate to begin with, and would probably take congressional action to rescind it as well. And our noble (?) and esteemed (?!) Congress has far more important things on their plate right now that need to be screwed up first. :rolleyes:

jtbell

12-19-09, 10:08 AM

I'm glad I'm here where the power and Internet are reliable, rather than home. (http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs108.snc3/15545_1268034551992_1563660045_30693045_7023651_n.jpg)

This morning on the Today show, a Weather Channel / NBC reporter in Roanoke duplicated your trick. His ruler went all the way into the snow and then some. Good luck!

Last night the Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville stations were full of reports on the foot-deep snow and stuck traffic in the NC mountains, but down where I am, we had only rain and a bit of sleet.

foxeng

12-19-09, 10:17 AM

It was a congressional ploy perpetrated by representatives who felt that their states were being shortchanged!

Well not exactly. Yes, it was a political move that was created JUST for NJ. What precipitated it, was the following (from the WOR-TV Wiki): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR-TV#As_WOR-TV

Troubles with the FCC

While WOR-TV was gaining national exposure, a battle for the station's survival—and that of its owner—was well underway. In 1975, RKO applied for renewal of its license to operate WOR-TV. The Federal Communications Commission conditioned this renewal on that of its sister station, WNAC-TV in Boston. In 1980, the FCC stripped RKO of WNAC-TV's license due to a litany of offenses dating back to the 1960s, but ultimately because RKO had withheld evidence of corporate misconduct by General Tire. The decision meant that RKO lost WOR-TV's license and that of another sister station, KHJ-TV in Los Angeles (RKO General, Inc. (KHJ-TV), 3 FCC Rcd 5057 (1988)). However, an appeals court ruled that the FCC had erred in tying WOR-TV and KHJ-TV's renewals to WNAC-TV, and ordered new proceedings. RKO soon found itself under renewed pressure from the FCC, which began soliciting applications for all of the company's broadcast licenses in February 1983.

Move to New Jersey

In order to buy itself some time, RKO (with the help of New Jersey senator Bill Bradley) persuaded the U.S. Congress to pass a law requiring the FCC to automatically renew the license of any VHF station that moved its license to New Jersey, a state which for many years complained of being "underserved" by VHF stations from the New York City and Philadelphia markets. (With the 1962 conversion of Newark's channel 13 to non-commercial, New Jersey had no commercial VHF allocations located within the state.) RKO was able to retain WOR-TV by moving the channel 9 license to Secaucus (seven miles west of Manhattan) on April 20, 1983.

Trip in VA

12-19-09, 10:27 AM

This morning on the Today show, a Weather Channel / NBC reporter in Roanoke duplicated your trick. His ruler went all the way into the snow and then some. Good luck!

Last night the Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville stations were full of reports on the foot-deep snow and stuck traffic in the NC mountains, but down where I am, we had only rain and a bit of sleet.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs108.snc3/15545_1268370360387_1563660045_30693638_2852225_n.jpg

I had to give up on the ruler. Tape measure says 17 inches of snow. And it was a trek to get out to that spot where I was last night as the snow goes way over the top of my snow boots now.

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-19-09, 02:25 PM

arxaw

12-19-09, 03:23 PM

... And that was when having a V meant something. Today, to most, it's an albatross!Definitely an albatross in my area!

gjvrieze

12-19-09, 05:37 PM

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs108.snc3/15545_1268533684470_1563660045_30694008_3871414_n.jpg

20 inches. Just had to push my friend out of the snow so he could get to the store.

- Trip

About like last week when I was in Madison, WI on training and had 17.5" hit Monona, WI where my hotel was. Man was that not fun:)

Falcon_77

12-19-09, 07:10 PM

Is this a bad time to say it was in the mid to upper 70's here in the LA area? :D

Trip in VA

12-20-09, 08:50 PM

It's invisible to anyone who's not a staff member, but I just did a massive change in the way PIDs are handled on RabbitEars. Now, instead of storing them as varchars, it converts the hex to an int and stores it that way, then converts back into hex for displaying in the Technical Data section.

It may seem like a lot of trouble, but I've done this is so the PIDs can be converted back and forth in case I ever want to use the decimal PIDs for something, and I actually do have some ideas for them.

Anyway, I'm posting this in case anyone notes any errors in the PID formatting. If you do observe any, please let me know.

- Trip

Trip in VA

12-21-09, 12:47 AM

The only really interesting FCC action this evening is a VHF nightmare we've seen before. KTUL is licensed at 1779' 6.9 kW DA, with a permit to go to 1850' 15 kW ND. Earlier in the year, they requested to go up to 9.46 kW on their current antenna. Now they're seeking to go up to 18.9 kW on the current antenna.

- Trip

Dave Loudin

12-21-09, 02:37 PM

One for the VHF nightmares:

WUSA, Washington, DC, has filed for 52 kW (from 12.6 kW) on an experimental basis here. (https://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS_Attachment/getattachment.jsp?appn=101349845&qnum=5200&copynum=1&exhcnum=3) They propose to set up measurements where interference to WGAL and WBPH are predicted to see what power level they can ramp up to without causing interference.

Trip in VA

12-21-09, 02:50 PM

Trip in VA

12-22-09, 12:28 AM

Dave Loudin

12-22-09, 09:08 AM

Not sure how I missed it, but thanks for pointing it out.

I was thinking about WUSA the other day. If WGAL had anywhere to go, it's obvious they're anxious to get off of VHF. If WGAL could move to UHF somehow, WUSA might be well-served by trying to move down to channel 8. Might work out better than 9 given the presence of WBPH.

- Trip

This must have hit CDBS late Friday afternoon. Nobody had posted a whiff about this anywhere.

We'll see how the measurement program goes. If WUSA finds they can't raise power much omni-directionally, perhaps they might invest in a DA down the road.

re_nelson

12-22-09, 12:56 PM

Tonight we have another VHF nightmare, but this one is very interesting. Existing nightmare station WHAS has a permit for 19 kW DA which requires a new antenna. This directional pattern was required because use of the omni would cause 8.2% interference to WLFI.

Well, WHAS got an STA to boost power on the omni and do field testing. Their tests showed no real world increase in interference to WLFI. As such, WHAS is now applying to make the power boost on the omni permanent. WLFI agreed to accept the non-existent 8.2% interference.

This makes me wonder if similar testing with regard to WUSA might show a similar result.

These items (WHAS and WUSA) raise a couple of questions.

1). The original licensed power for WHAS was 5.2 kW followed by an STA for 16.4 kW (which is now a form 301). Is an increase of 4.98 dB really that significant on VHF?

2). For VHF, is is possible that the OET-69 interference projections may be wrong? Consider the case of WHAS where the ``real world'' interference to co-channel WLFI turned out to be less than projected.

As Trip notes, when WUSA fires up 52 kW ERP, one wonders if the models showing 14% interference to WBPH will be reflected in reality.

Falcon_77

12-22-09, 12:59 PM

INITIATION OF NATIONWIDE, FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED DIGITAL LICENSING FOR LOW POWER TELEVISION AND TV TRANSLATOR SERVICES POSTPONED TO JULY 26, 2010. (DA No. 09-2611).

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2611A1.pdf

The Media Bureau announces that the initiation of nationwide first-come, first-served, digital only licensing for low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations scheduled to begin January 25, 2010, is hereby postponed to July 26, 2010. On June 29, 2009, the Media Bureau announced that it would begin accepting applications on a first-come, first-served basis for new digital-only low power television (LPTV) and TV translator stations and for major changes to existing analog and digital LPTV and TV translator facilities in so-called “rural areas” on August 25, 2009, and without geographic restriction on January 25, 2010. The Bureau believes that a postponement of the January 25, 2010 date for nationwide licensing is necessary to complete the processing of applications that have been filed for rural areas since August 25, 2009, and to allow interested parties additional time to prepare applications for the remainder of the United States. Furthermore, postponement will permit Commission staff to dedicate additional time and resources for consideration of the Broadband Plan.

(Bold emphasis added.)

jtbell

12-22-09, 01:32 PM

Translation: "We don't want any new broadcast TV signals until we decide what to do with that spectrum in general." ;)

Trip in VA

12-22-09, 04:41 PM

re_nelson: An increase of less than 3 dB on WDBJ from 460 kW to 675 kW made a significant difference to a number of viewers back in the mountains, so it wouldn't surprise me.

- Trip

Thomas Desmond

12-22-09, 08:49 PM

Translation: "We don't want any new broadcast TV signals until we decide what to do with that spectrum in general." ;)

Yup. That's how I read it, too.

Just out of curiosity...anyone else here file comments in the broadband proceeding? (I submitted a several page long Word document of comments last night, and I suspect I'm not alone here.)

foxeng

12-23-09, 05:16 AM

Yup. That's how I read it, too.

Just out of curiosity...anyone else here file comments in the broadband proceeding? (I submitted a several page long Word document of comments last night, and I suspect I'm not alone here.)

I am afraid that if this FCC is determined to give spectrum to the wireless companies, you could have all comments against it and the FCC would still do it. They have an agenda and they don't care what the public thinks.

Stanislav

12-23-09, 07:28 AM

I am afraid that if this FCC is determined to give spectrum to the wireless companies, you could have all comments against it and the FCC would still do it. They have an agenda and they don't care what the public thinks.

Let me put that into context with a current local news story...

Bright House (the local CATV provider) and Fox are having one of those commonplace monetary disputes in which it is threatened that all Fox programming will be pulled from cable if a satisfactory resolution does not appear. The drop-dead date for the deal is January 1st -- the very day that Fox will be carrying the Sugar Bowl.

Here in football-mad Florida, where Gator football is a religion, the local media is replete with sensationalistic reporting about the dispute, warning that area Gators fans will not be able to watch the Sugar Bowl if Fox is pulled from Bright House's lineup.

Sure, we know from past history that these disputes usually get resolved in time, and I have no doubt that some agreement will be reached before Florida and Cincinnati kickoff in The Big Easy. But in all the local reporting, print and broadcast, there has not been a SINGLE mention of the fact that IF the "Great Fox Cable Blackout" DOES come to pass, the game can still quite easily be viewed OVER THE AIR, for FREE, in beautiful HD, on local affiliate WOFL.

Fact is, we have a generation of Americans for whom wired TV is the norm, and many, if not most, have never even dealt with OTA broadcast TV. There are still many who, hard as it may seem for us to imagine, probably don't even KNOW what OTA is, and have long since lost any distinction in their minds between broadcast channels and other channels. All they know is that it all comes to them down the "tubes."

This is why the whole digital transition and its associated headaches was, at most, a perplexing curiosity for many Americans, and an utter non-issue for most. In reality, the FCC could end broadcast TV tomorrow, giving all the spectrum to wireless, and except for some poor people and OTA geeks like us (I happen, BTW, to fit into both those categories), HARDLY ANYONE WILL CARE OR EVEN NOTICE.

So when you say that "they [the FCC] don't care what the public thinks," that's not quite accurate. They DO care what the public thinks, but when it comes to this whole issue of spectrum and the battle between wireless interests and broadcast interests, the "public," for the most part, thinks, "So?"

The death of OTA is inevitable; a matter of "when," not "if."

rdvegas

12-23-09, 10:23 AM

The death of OTA is inevitable; a matter of "when," not "if."

Don't sign a contract for the fat lady to sing just yet.

Stanislav

12-23-09, 12:50 PM

Don't sign a contract for the fat lady to sing just yet.

I'm not saying the opera is almost over, but we are well into Act III, and the music is accelerating. :(

foxeng

12-23-09, 07:00 PM

I'm not saying the opera is almost over, but we are well into Act III, and the music is accelerating. :(

Same thing was said in the 80's that by the time Y2k rolled around, OTA would be history. Still waiting for that one to happen.

w9wi

12-23-09, 08:50 PM

These items (WHAS and WUSA) raise a couple of questions.

...

2). For VHF, is is possible that the OET-69 interference projections may be wrong? Consider the case of WHAS where the ``real world'' interference to co-channel WLFI turned out to be less than projected.

Not having read the documents...

Is it possible what they found with WHAS vs. WLFI is that interference existed, but in a place where nobody was watching either station?

It would seem to me the interference area would lie more or less over, or just south of, the city of Indianapolis. There are of course local ABC and CBS affiliates in Indianapolis -- I would imagine you would spend a LOT of time trying to find anyone watching WLFI or WHAS in Marion Co.!

Trip in VA

12-23-09, 08:53 PM

StudioTech

12-23-09, 11:35 PM

Stanislav does bring up an interesting point though. Most 18 year olds have no idea what rabbit ears are, have NEVER seen a TV that didn't have a remote. or have even seen a B&W TV. So it's no surprise if that also don't know the difference between broadcast and non-broadcast TV.

Trip in VA

12-24-09, 12:22 AM

Tonight's VHF nightmare is WFAA! I'm sure this makes some people happy that they at least acknowledge a problem now.

They seek to increase power from 45 kW to 55 kW.

- Trip

re_nelson

12-24-09, 01:45 AM

Tonight's VHF nightmare is WFAA! I'm sure this makes some people happy that they at least acknowledge a problem now.

They seek to increase power from 45 kW to 55 kW.

Amazing...that's one I *never* thought I'd ever see!

Although I must confess that I've largely come to terms with VHF and WFAA in particular by using a Winegard YA-1713 which has good gain and a narrow beamwidth. Of course that's just me and my setup is atypical.

Does anyone know if Belo had a VHF mandate (similar to the ABC O&Os)? From what I recall, most of the Belo stations on high-V returned after the transition (WFAA, KGW, WHAS and WVEC come to immediately to mind).

foxeng

12-24-09, 08:01 AM

Not having read the documents...

Is it possible what they found with WHAS vs. WLFI is that interference existed, but in a place where nobody was watching either station?

It would seem to me the interference area would lie more or less over, or just south of, the city of Indianapolis. There are of course local ABC and CBS affiliates in Indianapolis -- I would imagine you would spend a LOT of time trying to find anyone watching WLFI or WHAS in Marion Co.!

I can't speak for WHAS and WLFI, but in my own stations situation, after taking field strength measurements on channel 8, the actual measurements didn't match the predicted by quite a bit. Our interference point dropped off a good distance from where the predicted showed it would start. I believe that is why the FCC is allowing these high levels if a station can prove, with measurements and not with Longley-Rice, that no interference exists. Not only did we decide to NOT try to increase on VHF since our pre-transition UHF was still available, but the amount of power we predicted we would need to penetrate buildings for the indoor antennas was going to be cost prohibitive.

I looked at some modified measurements up to 80 kw ERP, and it still didn't equal to what our UHF allocation was doing with Longley-Rice. The reason 80 kw was looked out was that is the most digital power I can put out with equipment on hand (the equivalent of a 44kw analog transmitter with a 12 gain traveling wave antenna). Looking at the data, we made the assumption that we would need to produce around 120 kw ERP to BEGIN to penetrate buildings. You are now talking the equivalent of a 60 kw analog transmitter running full bore. No one thought the FCC would give us that (being on the east coast) and the interference level WOULD be pretty high at that point to at least 2 other co-channel stations that we looked at. It looks like 40kw is about the most the FCC is willing to go around here based on what other stations have done in the region.

It would appear the FCC really blew the VHF measurements, but they have now moved on to broadband and trying to correct the error is not very high on their list of priorities so if a station can prove they will not cause undo interference, they will approve it just to keep on track with their own agenda.

kb7oeb

12-24-09, 08:10 AM

I find it interesting that OTA seems to be gaining in England and Australia, Sony even sells a tuner module for the PS3 to turn it into an OTA DVR in those countries.

foxeng

12-24-09, 08:12 AM

Amazing...that's one I *never* thought I'd ever see!

Although I must confess that I've largely come to terms with VHF and WFAA in particular by using a Winegard YA-1713 which has good gain and a narrow beamwidth. Of course that's just me and my setup is atypical.

Does anyone know if Belo had a VHF mandate (similar to the ABC O&Os)? From what I recall, most of the Belo stations on high-V returned after the transition (WFAA, KGW, WHAS and WVEC come to immediately to mind).

I don't know about Belo, but FOX definitely wanted to stay in VHF high where they could and to my knowledge, none of the FOX O & O's that remained or moved to VHF high have moved off. I know several have increased power. KTTV (11) and KCOP (13) both increased power from 15 kw to 120 kw soon after the transition since they had the horsepower sitting there. But out west like that, interference isn't as much of an issue as it is in the east because of the density of the stations. Their east coast stations were forced to remain UHF post transition since most were VHF low to start with (channel 5) or there just wasn't any VHF spectrum available post transition (Boston/Orlando). WTVT Tampa was issued channel 12 pre-transition, so they kept that.