Stations voluntarily selling their spectrum is exactly what the FCC is counting on. That and channel sharing, in which two or more licensees share the same 6 MHz block of spectrum. To hear FCC officials, one would think that that's the answer to all TV spectrum problems.

I'm not advocating channel sharing because it limits options for sub channels, but KSBW in Salinas is broadcasting NBC 1080i on 8.1 and ABC 720p on 8.2. Both pictures look far better than I imagined they could. Maybe I'm not picky enough, but I can't see any real difference between their quality and other NBC/ABC network stations. I have not yet been able to take a careful look at KSBW when there is live sports on both networks.

There is another option to increase efficiency but I wouldn't expect anyone to be enthused about it: 16 VSB. Twice the data rate at the penalty of 3 dB higher signal-to-noise. Doubling the transmitter power could make up for that but multipath issues would be worse. Of course this would require a second transition which I agree is all but off the table for the foreseeable future.

Still though, 16 VSB + MPEG-4 + 2x transmitter power + improved receiver multipath performance would equal a significant increase in bandwidth efficiency without degrading reception.

Chuck

Still though, 16 VSB + MPEG-4 + 2x transmitter power + improved receiver multipath performance would equal a significant increase in bandwidth efficiency without degrading reception.

Yep, and the idiots with the ties too tight around their necks, such that they can't think straight, will cram even more useless crap into the previous bandwidth, still resulting in the main HD stream to macroblock like crazy,

I'm not advocating channel sharing because it limits options for sub channels, but KSBW in Salinas is broadcasting NBC 1080i on 8.1 and ABC 720p on 8.2. Both pictures look far better than I imagined they could. Maybe I'm not picky enough, but I can't see any real difference between their quality and other NBC/ABC network stations. I have not yet been able to take a careful look at KSBW when there is live sports on both networks.

There is another option to increase efficiency but I wouldn't expect anyone to be enthused about it: 16 VSB. Twice the data rate at the penalty of 3 dB higher signal-to-noise. Doubling the transmitter power could make up for that but multipath issues would be worse. Of course this would require a second transition which I agree is all but off the table for the foreseeable future.

Still though, 16 VSB + MPEG-4 + 2x transmitter power + improved receiver multipath performance would equal a significant increase in bandwidth efficiency AD degrading reception.

Chuck

Our KBMT took over NBC duties when our longtime NBC affilliate switched from NBC to FOX. KBMT downconverts NBC to 720 and runs it beside ABC, also at 720 and it too looks really good. But don't get me wrong, "repackaging" is not something I am looking forward to. And to make matters worse for us, KBTV (the now FOX affiliate) is currently broadcasting on channel 40, a channel certain to be highjacked... Plus, we are right at a mere 100 miles from Houston which will have to repackage I think it is 17 full power stations into 31 or 36 channels???!!!

In a nutshell, this sucks. :mad: Bye, bye broadcast HD.

There is another option to increase efficiency but I wouldn't expect anyone to be enthused about it: 16 VSB. Twice the data rate at the penalty of 3 dB higher signal-to-noise. Doubling the transmitter power could make up for that but multipath issues would be worse. Of course this would require a second transition which I agree is all but off the table for the foreseeable future.
Chuck
The signal to noise ratio penalty for 16-VSB is approximately 13 dB. That's because adding 1 bit per symbol doesn't get you twice the bitrate. To get twice the bitrate, the 2/3 rate Trellis FEC is also removed. Without the FEC, the S/N takes a big 13 dB hit.

16-VSB is/was intended for cable systems, not over the air emission.

Ron

What would the S/N penalty be if a station broadcast QAM over the air? QAM on RF 2-13 would be compatible with most existing tv sets.

What would the S/N penalty be if a station broadcast QAM over the air? QAM on RF 2-13 would be compatible with most existing tv sets.

Which one? 16QAM? 64QAM? 256QAM? If I remember correctly, you would also need to change from 8VSB to DVB (COFDM). That AIN'T happening.

The signal to noise ratio penalty for 16-VSB is approximately 13 dB. That's because adding 1 bit per symbol doesn't get you twice the bitrate. To get twice the bitrate, the 2/3 rate Trellis FEC is also removed. Without the FEC, the S/N takes a big 13 dB hit.

16-VSB is/was intended for cable systems, not over the air emission.

Ron

I guess I need some more education because going from 3 bits per symbol to 4 bits per symbol transmits twice the number of bits. Are you saying that error correcting takes up so many bits in 16 VSB that the effective data rate increase is much less than 2X?

Chuck

What would the S/N penalty be if a station broadcast QAM over the air? QAM on RF 2-13 would be compatible with most existing tv sets.

It's my understanding that PSK modulation is very poor at handling multipath and co-channel interference therefore it's not suitable for OTA TV broadcasting. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I do know that PSK modulation is used in some satellite applications where multipath is not an issue. At one time I tested a demodulator that demodulated BPSK through 256QAM that was used in a satellite application. They even considered expanding it to 512QAM and 1024QAM.

I personally have received BPSK transmissions from NOAA low orbiting weather satellites and it worked fine with no error correction at all. The GOES satellites use QPSK.

Chuck

The signal to noise ratio penalty for 16-VSB is approximately 13 dB. That's because adding 1 bit per symbol doesn't get you twice the bitrate. To get twice the bitrate, the 2/3 rate Trellis FEC is also removed. Without the FEC, the S/N takes a big 13 dB hit.

16-VSB is/was intended for cable systems, not over the air emission.

Ron

Okay. I was able to find this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0006WMQOBE8C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=16+vsb+trellis+coding&source=bl&ots=b-1GbNUybs&sig=Hrxv-O_cezRyj5p62KcR5JhHBc0&hl=en&ei=C4TeTsSyI-XliALY87jlCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=16%20vsb%20trellis%20coding&f=false

I understand now that the spec for the data encoding to be used with 8VSB modulation includes trellis coding which uses a lot of overhead, and that the spec for the data encoding to be used with 16VSB modulation omits the trellis coding. This is done on purpose because cable systems don't suffer from co-channel analog signals or multipath so the higher SNR requirement is acceptable; i.e. the 13 dB you mentioned.

Now my question is, could a new spec be developed that included trellis coding for use with 16VSB OTA? Let's say 3/4? I imagine that it could be. Or is there something inherent to trellis coding limits it to 2/3? I don't know the math behind this.

Finally I don't understand why they say the 8VSB bit rate with trellis coding is only half of 16VSB without trellis coding. Two bits compared to 4 bits is a factor of 4. Seems like it should be 1/4. I must be missing something.

Chuck

Which one? 16QAM? 64QAM? 256QAM? If I remember correctly, you would also need to change from 8VSB to DVB (COFDM). That AIN'T happening.

That's right, it ain't!

If you remember the derivation of the US HDTV system, each and every applicant got one piece of the ATSC system, the "Grand Alliance". Zenith's contribution was 8 VSB. If you eliminate 8 VSB, you break the compromise that resulted in the US system.

Now, when the ATSC patents expire, perhaps we can look at DVB-T2, which uses multiple carriers, each modulated with QAM. These signals are called OFDM, and have superior multipath performance to 8 VSB, but a higher peak to average ratio, and a greater signal to noise requirement. It would be nearly impossible to replicate ATSC coverage areas using DVB-T2 unless you had multiple transmitters transmitting the same thing on the same channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVB-T2

I guess I need some more education because going from 3 bits per symbol to 4 bits per symbol transmits twice the number of bits.
Chuck
How is 4 = 3 * 2? Increasing the bits per symbol from 3 to 4 raises the bitrate by 4/3 or 1.333. That gets us to 19.39 * 1.333 = 25.853 Mbps. Then by removing the 2/3 FEC, the bitrate is increased by 3/2 or 1.5. 25.853 * 1.5 = 38.78 Mbps. Another way to look at it is 4/3 * 3/2 = 2.

The 16-VSB numbers can be found here.

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_54a_with_corr_1.pdf

See Table 8.1

Ron

What would the S/N penalty be if a station broadcast QAM over the air? QAM on RF 2-13 would be compatible with most existing tv sets.
For QAM-64, the required S/N is 22 to 24 dB and for QAM-256, it's about 28 to 30 dB. So at least 7 dB for QAM-64 and 13 dB for QAM-256.

But as Calaveras points out, QAM and PSK aren't very well suited to OTA transmission. A simplified explanation is that QAM and PSK both use phase modulation to carry the bits. But multipath is essentially a phase shifted version of the main signal. Therefore, with QAM and PSK, multipath directly affects the way the bits are being received. No bueno.

For QAM and PSK to work, you need to take care of the multipath (more technically called inter symbol interference or ISI) somehow. That's were multi-carrier systems like COFDM come into play.

Ron

Now my question is, could a new spec be developed that included trellis coding for use with 16VSB OTA? Let's say 3/4? I imagine that it could be. Or is there something inherent to trellis coding limits it to 2/3? I don't know the math behind this.
Chuck
You can have different FEC coding rates. The most often used rates are 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 5/6 and 7/8.

However, there's no free lunch. Any increase in bitrate in the same 6 MHz channel will require more signal to noise ratio. IMHO, it will be impossible to convince broadcasters to either increase power to maintain their coverage area or lose coverage area just to increase the delivered bitrate.

Ron

When I mentioned QAM I meant broadcasting OTA using the system that is currently used on U.S. cable, because on RF channels 2-13 it would be compatible with most current tv sets. I was not referring to any system currently used in Europe or elsewhere. I am vehemantly opposed to anything that means another nonbackwardcompatible transition anytime within the next 30 years minimum!

When I mentioned QAM I meant broadcasting OTA using the system that is currently used on U.S. cable, because on RF channels 2-13 it would be compatible with most current tv sets. I was not referring to any system currently used in Europe or elsewhere. I am vehemantly opposed to anything that means another nonbackwardcompatible transition anytime within the next 30 years minimum!

Not every 8VSB set has QAM in it, but every QAM set does 8VSB. Remember 8VSB IS required for digital sets. QAM is not. I have two sets that have analog and 8VSB but no QAM. 8VSB and QAM are modulation types and are not compatible to each other. It isn't as simple as swapping one for the other. There are lots of technical issues that go along with a swap like that.

No CECB that I'm aware handles QAM. I don't think that was even permitted.

How is 4 = 3 * 2? Increasing the bits per symbol from 3 to 4 raises the bitrate by 4/3 or 1.333. That gets us to 19.39 * 1.333 = 25.853 Mbps. Then by removing the 2/3 FEC, the bitrate is increased by 3/2 or 1.5. 25.853 * 1.5 = 38.78 Mbps. Another way to look at it is 4/3 * 3/2 = 2.

The 16-VSB numbers can be found here.

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_54a_with_corr_1.pdf

See Table 8.1

Ron

I got it. I was being dense. I was confusing the number of bits with the values they represent. :o

Chuck

No CECB that I'm aware handles QAM. I don't think that was even permitted.

Correct. FCC rules did not permit anything but 8VSB for the CECB.

No CECB that I'm aware handles QAM. I don't think that was even permitted.

Practically.

Technically, many boxes using chips (tuner/demod) what are support QAM. Updating FW would open the feature.

Practically.

Technically, many boxes using chips (tuner/demod) what are support QAM. Updating FW would open the feature.

I don't know how many CECB's have firmware upgrade features. Mine doesn't.

Practically.

Technically, many boxes using chips (tuner/demod) what are support QAM. Updating FW would open the feature.
We're talking about boxes mass marketed to J6P. "Practically" is all that counts; "technically" is irrelevant. (And resistance is futile... ;))

Okay, so somehow the FCC granted WLJC 185 kW on channel 7. Now I'm confused.

- Trip

Okay, so somehow the FCC granted WLJC 185 kW on channel 7. Now I'm confused.

- Trip

They want to make sure the wisdom of Jesus reaches Mars.

Okay, so somehow the FCC granted WLJC 185 kW on channel 7. Now I'm confused.

- Trip

Largest station exception, according to their technical exhibit. They claim that it takes 185 kW to match the coverage of WYMT Hazard, and apparently, the FCC agrees. Unless the FCC changes its mind in the future and rescinds the grant. Conveniently for WLJC-TV, it's just enough to put the 43 DBU contour completely over Lexington.

But it exceeds the 160 kW limit. They shot down KCWX's request to boost to 82 kW and WBNS's request to boost to 1700 kW on those grounds.

- Trip

But it exceeds the 160 kW limit. They shot down KCWX's request to boost to 82 kW and WBNS's request to boost to 1700 kW on those grounds.


My guess (and it's only that) is that the FCC is now looking with favor on VHF. This may set a precedent in order to encourage stations to reconsider VHF over UHF.

Lookee! VHF is the hot new band! We'll give you BIG GIANT power if you give up your UHF assignment for the telecoms.

But it exceeds the 160 kW limit. They shot down KCWX's request to boost to 82 kW and WBNS's request to boost to 1700 kW on those grounds.

- Trip

KCWX didn't claim largest station exception in their application. It's also worth noting that the FCC database shows that application as still active, but ungranted. What the FCC dismissed was KCWX's STA request to begin operations at that power level prior to FCC approval of the Form 301 application, which would have to clear Mexican coordination first. I have a sense, however, KCWX has abandoned its own application, as they have now applied for a replacement DTV translator in the Austin area, to operate on RF channel 8.

While WBNS-TV did claim the largest station exception, their application admitted to 0.66% interference to co-channel WUPX Morehead KY, when calculated using Longley-Rice methodology. That's above the 0.5% permissible limit. WBNS vowed to either secure an agreement from WUPX to accept the interference, or to amend their application to lower interference to WUPX. Again, according to the FCC database, they did neither. Nor do we know if their application ever cleared Canadian coordination; I'm sure Columbus lies within the Canadian coordination zone. In any case, just based on the impermissible interference to WUPX, the FCC would dismiss that application. It would have been helpful if the FCC had published the communication with WBNS concerning this application.

If Low VHF could have 185,000 watts would it be suitable to use then? What is the putential coverage area for a low VHF station with that much power?

If Low VHF could have 185,000 watts would it be suitable to use then? What is the putential coverage area for a low VHF station with that much power?

Wow - talk about a DXer's delight!!

If Low VHF could have 185,000 watts would it be suitable to use then? What is the putential coverage area for a low VHF station with that much power?

I just ran a Longley-Rice estimate of how KCWX (RF-5) would look with 185 kW at its HAAT of 1351':

http://www.onairusa.com/185kw/index.html

Compare it with the present coverage with 23.7 kW at that height:

http://www.rabbitears.info/contour.php?appid=1320666&contour=N&size=&map=Y&head=Y&extras=&cir=&circen=30.1369444444%2C-98.6097222222

How is 4 = 3 * 2? Increasing the bits per symbol from 3 to 4 raises the bitrate by 4/3 or 1.333. That gets us to 19.39 * 1.333 = 25.853 Mbps. Then by removing the 2/3 FEC, the bitrate is increased by 3/2 or 1.5. 25.853 * 1.5 = 38.78 Mbps. Another way to look at it is 4/3 * 3/2 = 2.

The 16-VSB numbers can be found here.

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_54a_with_corr_1.pdf

See Table 8.1

Ron

Ok if I'm reading that correctly the main differnce between 8-VSB and 16-VSB is that 8-VSB has more coding to prevent analog interference. And that extra coding is why its capped at 19 Mbps. Seeing that as of Sept 1 2015 that will not longer be an issue since all analogs will have to shut down by then then it seem that that extra coding will no longer be necessary. That would allow OTA broadcasters to use 16-VSB which means 38 Mbps. Or am I misreading that.

Ok if I'm reading that correctly the main differnce between 8-VSB and 16-VSB is that 8-VSB has more coding to prevent analog interference. And that extra coding is why its capped at 19 Mbps. Seeing that as of Sept 1 2015 that will not longer be an issue since all analogs will have to shut down by then then it seem that that extra coding will no longer be necessary. That would allow OTA broadcasters to use 16-VSB which means 38 Mbps. Or am I misreading that.


Possibly -
BUT -
you still need to get reception devices out to the viewers that can accept 16VSB.

Ok if I'm reading that correctly the main differnce between 8-VSB and 16-VSB is that 8-VSB has more coding to prevent analog interference. And that extra coding is why its capped at 19 Mbps. Seeing that as of Sept 1 2015 that will not longer be an issue since all analogs will have to shut down by then then it seem that that extra coding will no longer be necessary. That would allow OTA broadcasters to use 16-VSB which means 38 Mbps. Or am I misreading that.

I think analog interference is the least of the issues. The error correcting also helps with multipath and noise significantly improving the useable SNR. From what I can tell, the minimum SNR for 8VSB with no error correcting is about 24 dB. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that. See page 9 in this PDF.

http://www.digitalproceiver.com/modsci/public/images/whitePapers/televisionproducts/msi4400a/measuring%208vsb.pdf

It looks like the dots just stay within the lines at 24 dB SNR. Dots that cross the lines are errors that need to be corrected.

In Table 8.1 in the link that Ron posted above, it shows that the 8VSB symbol rate is 10.76 Msymbols/S or 32.28 Mbps. The Data Payload Rate is 19.39 Mbps. If you eliminate the Trellis coding, the Data Payload Rate should go up to 29.09 Mbps, leaving 3.19 Mbps of other overhead.

In the same table it shows 16VSB Data Payload Rate of 38.78 Mbps with no Trellis coding. If you were to add 3/4 coding for OTA use then the Payload Data Rate would go down to 29.09 Mbps.

From what I've seen, it looks like Trellis coding uses 1 bit/symbol, hence 2/3 for 8VSB and I assume 3/4 for 16VSB. There must be some SNR penalty for 3/4 compared to 2/3. 16VSB should require 3 dB higher SNR for the same performance so the transmitters need to increase power by 2X. I'm thinking that the minimum SNR for 16VSB would be on the order of 19-20 dB.

Of course this is just an exercise in "What could be done to improve efficiency?" since it would require another transition which should not happen for a long time.

Chuck

Of course this is just an exercise in "What could be done to improve efficiency?" since it would require another transition which should not happen for a long time.

Chuck

If the FCC takes away 31-51 and stations are focred to share channels it'll have to happen sooner than later.

Besides the FCC can madate that all TVs made after Jan 1st 2013 have 16VSB tuners in them. Have the transition take place in Jan 2018. That's 5 years.

Of course this is just an exercise in "What could be done to improve efficiency?" since it would require another transition which should not happen for a long time.

Chuck
If it was possible to have another transition, then using 16-VSB would be a pretty silly way to go. It's a 90's technology that never saw the light of day.

There have been many advances in error coding and modulation since 1995. Many of these new techniques (like Low Density Parity Check and Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem multiple error correction binary block codes) are used in the DVB-T2 specification.

From this document, it would seem that a 27 Mbps service could be obtained in a 6 MHz channel at around 16 to 17 dB signal to noise ratio. Or even more trickier, a 20 Mbps service in a 4.5 MHz channel. Then you could have the same number of TV stations delivering an ATSC similar service in 25% less RF bandwidth.

http://www.dvb.org/technology/standards/a133_DVB-T2_Imp_Guide.pdf

Ron

No matter what KCWX does with their ERP at that "remote" TL, it will still deliver the best signal to more cattle and mesquite than to OTA viewers. :) The long tale of one of perhaps last full-power US commercial Ch 2 NTSCs to be licensed
http://www.qsl.net/wa5iyx/fred-2.htm
That said, my viewing them as a 23-kw DT-5 has been far superior to their 100-kw analog 2 with all the interference it would suffer (lightning, appliances, co-channel from Houston tropo and the rest of country's on Es) at 46 miles away.

Another transition in 2018?! Are you freaking joking?! HELL NO!!! The public should riot in the streets if that happens. Even 2028 or 2038 are way too soon for another nonbackwardcompatible transition. Something of the magnitude of what we went through last decade should be a once in a lifetime thing!

Another transition in 2018?! Are you freaking joking?! HELL NO!!! The public should riot in the streets if that happens. Even 2028 or 2038 are way too soon for another nonbackwardcompatible transition. Something of the magnitude of what we went through last decade should be a once in a lifetime thing!

Hi,

Transition in 2018, I will not be around then perhaps but I expect the OTA to Cable / Satellite / Internet transition to be almost completed by then.

What might remain of OTA DTV at that point, look at Channel 1 (ONE). That service with 12 video channels will be the pattern for sure. (First in list)

Larry
SF
__________________
My complete SF Bay Area DTV Station Lists: http://www.choisser.com/sfonair.html
...

Even the equipment that KAXT uses is pretty.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20406177#post20406177

HDTV, you think that it will be forever free, ROFLOL.

Remember, we had a "DTV" transition, NOT a "HDTV" transition.

SHF

As it turns out, the ATSC 3.0 folks have already considered using LDPC and BCH error correction codes with 8-VSB.

http://atsc.org/cms/pdf/pt2/02-PT-2-Infor-X-Rec-FEC-Yiyan-V10.pdf

On page 40, it looks like a 24 Mbps service is possible at 15 dB S/N ratio.

Ron

As it turns out, the ATSC 3.0 folks have already considered using LDPC and BCH error correction codes with 8-VSB.

http://atsc.org/cms/pdf/pt2/02-PT-2-Infor-X-Rec-FEC-Yiyan-V10.pdf

On page 40, it looks like a 24 Mbps service is possible at 15 dB S/N ratio.

Ron

I'm doing my best to understand this. In another link you posted there was a table that said that the ATSC symbol rate is 10.76 Msymbols/S or 32.28 Mbps. Looking at the graph on page 40, that would correspond to a Shannon limit of about 20 dB C/N. This is what I read somewhere else as the essentially error-free C/N requirement with no error correcting.

If I understand this correctly, the Data Rate label is actually the Data Payload Rate, a term used in your other link. Data Payload Rate meaning the actual useable data which is what's left over after all overhead is accounted for; i.e., error correction and whatever else there is.

So it appears that the newer error correction schemes use fewer bits to achieve the same level of error correction as the current ATSC system does thus resulting in a greater Data Payload Rate.

Further it appears that all this error correction has been implemented to reduce the useable C/N from around 20 dB to 15 dB.

On top of greater error correction efficiency with these newer methods, there's also greater data compression efficiency that can be achieved by moving from MPEG2 to MPEG4.

Do I have this correct or have I missed something?

At the end of the presentation it is stated that OTA can never compete with satellite or cable in terms of bandwidth efficiency. I assume this is because the latter two don't need any error correcting. But it is also stated that OTA has its own advantages.

Chuck

At the end of the presentation it is stated that OTA can never compete with satellite or cable in terms of bandwidth efficiency. I assume this is because the latter two don't need any error correcting. But it is also stated that OTA has its own advantages.



Over the air suffers from multipath that is not present in satellite signals.

Satellite signals suffer from the extreme distances between the satellite and the ground station and the high gain antennas needed to compensate.

Bottom line, if you use the right antenna for terrestrial broadcasting it can work fine, but mistakes in antenna selection and installation are well documented in these forums. For mobile reception, a large, perfectly aimed satellite antenna is impractical, so over the air wins.

I'd suggest that few try to install their own satellite antenna, but many attempt to self-install an over the air antenna. The gap in experience can explain many of the OTA miscues.

Over the air suffers from multipath that is not present in satellite signals.

I'd suggest that few try to install their own satellite antenna, but many attempt to self-install an over the air antenna. The gap in experience can explain many of the OTA miscues.

I have had to find that out by trial and error. I have installed several outdoor antennas for family, friends, and coworkers. Most got beautiful results immediately while a couple were far less than ideal. I spent many hours wringing hands and pulling hair out before learning what the cause was. Short term multi-path overloading the tuner being the biggest bug-a-boo I have run into. I now know what to look for and be aware of when selecting a location to install, but those with less experience may have given it one shot, got less than desirable results, and given up...

I assume this is because the latter two don't need any error correcting.

256-QAM used on US cable systems is still coded, but fairly lightly. The symbol rate for 256-QAM is 5.360537 Msps. There are 8 bits per symbol, so the raw bitrate is 42.88430 Mbps. The payload rate is 38.81070 Mbps, so there's only about 10% wasted in error correction coding. Compare that with 40% for 8-VSB, and you can see what the author was getting at.

Cable 256-QAM is described in this standard.

http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/Standards/ANSISCTE072006.pdf

Satellite is similar, although they use a little more coding. Typically a 3/4, 5/6, 6/7 or 7/8 rate FEC.

Ron

I have had to find that out by trial and error. I have installed several outdoor antennas for family, friends, and coworkers. ... I now know what to look for and be aware of when selecting a location to install...

Location, location, location... this has been the biggest problem for lots of folks here in the SF Bay Area. We've found that just a few feet one way or the other, either horizontally or vertically, can make a big difference in what you receive. Moving the antenna from one side of the house to the other or raising it or lowering it a few feet can solve a lot of problems.

I recently had a two man crew work on my antennas. Used to do it myself, but I'm getting too old to do it now. They installed two push-up masts and once the antennas were installed they raised and lowered them to find the best spots. I now get some distant stations up to 7 dB stronger that I used to. Same antennas, same location on the roof, just different heights... in this case it's higher in both cases.

I think a 29 dB signal on channel 32 from 65 miles away is pretty good.

Larry
SF

Location, location, location... this has been the biggest problem for lots of folks here in the SF Bay Area. We've found that just a few feet one way or the other, either horizontally or vertically, can make a big difference in what you receive. Moving the antenna from one side of the house to the other or raising it or lowering it a few feet can solve a lot of problems.

I recently had a two man crew work on my antennas. Used to do it myself, but I'm getting too old to do it now. They installed two push-up masts and once the antennas were installed they raised and lowered them to find the best spots. I now get some distant stations up to 7 dB stronger that I used to. Same antennas, same location on the roof, just different heights... in this case it's higher in both cases.

I think a 29 dB signal on channel 32 from 65 miles away is pretty good.

Larry
SF

It is the same here. A few feet here or there can mean all the difference. We don't have hills here. It is about as flat as you can get... You would think it would ne a piece of cake. Ah, not so. It's the trees with their little year 'round sub-tropical leaves flickering in the wind. They wreak havok with multi-path...

It is the same here. A few feet here or there can mean all the difference. We don't have hills here. It is about as flat as you can get... You would think it would ne a piece of cake. Ah, not so. It's the trees with their little year 'round sub-tropical leaves flickering in the wind. They wreak havok with multi-path...

Hi,

We had a big windstorm here in California. I was trying to watch the noon news on two stations, RF 29 and RF 44. Both were very choppy on short time frames. This was something new that I had not see before.

I looked out my window and tall trees ~ 100 feet away were swinging like mad.

The temperature inversion over the bay and the mountain reflections are what I usually fight, RF 29 and RF 30 were gone for a while this fall, now back. That also was new. (Early rain?)

Leaves on the trees will be soon gone. I can remember ~ 1975 coming home early the day before DST ended so I could rake the last of the leaves with some light, now mid December and lots of leaves are still on.

SHF

tall trees ~ 100 feet away were swinging like mad.

Dynamic multi-path.

Dynamic multi-path.

So, out of curiosity, other than short term multi-path and dynamic multi-path, could you provide a list of other mulri-path issues that are commonly encountered?

could you provide a list of other mulri-path issues that are commonly encountered?
As long as we are playing 20 questions.

Other then narrowing beam width is there anything else an antenna designer is able to do to minimize multipath?

/tom

As long as we are playing 20 questions.

Other then narrowing beam width is there anything else an antenna designer is able to do to minimize multipath?

Some designs can reject multipath without losing directionality. Bow-tie antennas (like the coat-hanger :D ) are supposed to be good at that.

As long as we are playing 20 questions.

Other then narrowing beam width is there anything else an antenna designer is able to do to minimize multipath?

/tom

Better front to back and front to side ratios will reduce multipath.

In a situation where the multipath is airplane flutter, reduced vertical beamwidth also helps.

Is the deadline to clear channels 52 through 69 of all TV stations still December 31, 2011?

Ron

Is the deadline to clear channels 52 through 69 of all TV stations still December 31, 2011?

Ron

I don't think so... As far as I know, there is an analog channel 56 (KQHO-LP) near Houston that has a CP to move into Houston and change the City of License from Beaumont to Houston...

The CP expires on 09-01-2015.

Is the deadline to clear channels 52 through 69 of all TV stations still December 31, 2011?

Ron

Yes it is, but that has not stopped many rural translators from filing STAs seeking to delay it another few months. I don't think the FCC has acted on them yet.

- Trip

I don't think so... As far as I know, there is an analog channel 56 (KQHO-LP) near Houston that has a CP to move into Houston and change the City of License from Beaumont to Houston...

The CP expires on 09-01-2015.

Hate to tell you but in 2 days it won't be on the air.


Yes it is, but that has not stopped many rural translators from filing STAs seeking to delay it another few months. I don't think the FCC has acted on them yet.

- Trip

The FCC won't delay anything.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0811/DA-11-1375A1.pdf

Released: August 11, 2011

1. In this Order we deny a Motion forStay (“Stay Request”) filed by the National Translator Association (“NTA”) of the effectiveness of paragraphs 23 through 35 of the Second Report and Order adopted in the above-captioned proceeding,

2. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission required low power television and TV translator stations (collectively, “low power television stations”) on the “out-of-core” channels in the 700 MHz band (former television channels 52-69) to transition to an “in-core” digital channel(television channels 2-51 excluding channel 37) by December 31, 2011.

The Commission found that low power television stations have had sufficient notice that they would be required to clear the 700 MHz band and that the continued successful development of new commercial wireless and public safety facilities in the 700 MHz band will be greatly facilitated by requiring that all remaining analog and digital low power television stations be cleared from these channels by that date.

In addition, the Commission required that all low power television stations with facilities on channels 52-69, that have not already done so, to submit a digital displacement application proposing an in-core channel no later than September 1, 2011.

Stations that failed to submit the required displacementapplication by the September 1, 2011 deadline would be required to cease operation of their out-of-core facility by December 31, 2011 and would lose their authorization.

The Commission provided that stations could seek a waiver of the September 1, 2011 application filing deadline; however, all out-of-core operations must cease by December 31, 2011.

Hate to tell you but in 2 days it won't be on the air.






[/b]

Doesn't bother me. I was just going by the expiration date on the CP. In fact, even though the station was granted a License To Cover by the FCC, it actually was never built! It has never been on the tower they claim to be on. Has never broadcast a signal. I will be glad to see it deleted and removed from the database. We have a couple more in our area that have done the same thing. Two, I think are under investigation now, one I have word will be deleted soon, and another that needs to be investigated. I would like for them to be prosecuted for making willful mis-statements on government documents, to tell the truth...

Doesn't bother me. I was just going by the expiration date on the CP. In fact, even though the station was granted a License To Cover by the FCC, it actually was never built! It has never been on the tower they claim to be on. Has never broadcast a signal. I will be glad to see it deleted and removed from the database. We have a couple more in our area that have done the same thing. Two, I think are under investigation now, one I have word will be deleted soon, and another that needs to be investigated. I would like for them to be prosecuted for making willful mis-statements on government documents, to tell the truth...

LMO Christian Media owns it - that's no surprise. They and Hispanic Christian Community Network are two of the biggest offenders in what I call "phantom stations". Here in AZ, HCCN has several phantoms, and even sold one to LMO. To no one's surprise, the station continues to be a phantom. The M.O. for both is to buy a rural station and get it licensed without ever going on air, then to file a series of applications to step the "station" into a large city, where they sell the license at a profit. Sound familiar? KQHO was also owned by HCCN and sold to LMO. It has been moved from Beaumont to Houston.

As a Christian, I find the sleaze of it all especially shameful, as they dare to drag the title of "Christian" into their shady dealings. Gerald Benavides is another such sleaze. All 3 are HQ'd out of the D/FW Metroplex.

KQHO's CP is to cut to DTV on ch 20, and that really is good until 9/1/2015, but if they had actually been operating, they would need to cease operations on ch 56 after 12/31 until they got ch 20 up and running. A correct example of this is K55DB, a PBS translator in Prescott AZ, who has filed a silent STA and will be off the air beginning Saturday night, until they get their digital facility up and running on ch. 43.

LMO Christian Media owns it - that's no surprise. They and Hispanic Christian Community Network are two of the biggest offenders in what I call "phantom stations". Here in AZ, HCCN has several phantoms, and even sold one to LMO. To no one's surprise, the station continues to be a phantom. The M.O. for both is to buy a rural station and get it licensed without ever going on air, then to file a series of applications to step the "station" into a large city, where they sell the license at a profit. Sound familiar? KQHO was also owned by HCCN and sold to LMO. It has been moved from Beaumont to Houston.

As a Christian, I find the sleaze of it all especially shameful, as they dare to drag the title of "Christian" into their shady dealings. Gerald Benavides is another such sleaze. All 3 are HQ'd out of the D/FW Metroplex.

KQHO's CP is to cut to DTV on ch 20, and that really is good until 9/1/2015, but if they had actually been operating, they would need to cease operations on ch 56 after 12/31 until they got ch 20 up and running. A correct example of this is K55DB, a PBS translator in Prescott AZ, who has filed a silent STA and will be off the air beginning Saturday night, until they get their digital facility up and running on ch. 43.

Sounds very familiar. How do they get away with this with the FCC?

Phantom stations. Now I know what to call them. Irks me to no end...
Thanks for the backstory.

I like "phantom stations" too. We have lots of those around here. They play all sorts of paperwork games with the FCC but the stations never come on the air.

Chuck

Sounds very familiar. How do they get away with this with the FCC?


I think that the key is that there are so many LPTV/translator stations out there, the FCC doesn't have even close to the staff necessary to check all of them out, so they concentrate on the full-powers (although not always well either) and rely on complaints from the public or from honest operators themselves to police the low-power stations. Applications for license seem to be routinely granted for low-power stations, especially rural ones, without anyone ever checking if the station is actually operating.

I've seen stations with licenses where I cannot even find any kind of tower at the location specified. I've seen stations go silent for years at a time without ever notifying the FCC and without losing their licenses, while operators honest enough to report a silent station lose their licenses after being silent for 12 months. I've even heard - but I cannot verify the story - of one owner who claimed to be operating from a certain tower, and when informed of it, it was news to the tower owner!

I've wrestled with whether or not I should rat out these owners, especially at license renewal time, but in the end, I decided that the FCC really isn't even concerned. They have bigger fish to fry, like taking spectrum from OTA TV and selling it for broadband use. Then again, that might be the thing that makes the plans of these spectrum peddlers backfire: once the OTA TV band is reduced, there won't be any spectrum available in large cities for LPTV operators anyway, so those licenses the peddlers procured will become worthless in the end.

I think that the key is that there are so many LPTV/translator stations out there, the FCC doesn't have even close to the staff necessary to check all of them out, so they concentrate on the full-powers (although not always well either) and rely on complaints from the public or from honest operators themselves to police the low-power stations. Applications for license seem to be routinely granted for low-power stations, especially rural ones, without anyone ever checking if the station is actually operating.

I've seen stations with licenses where I cannot even find any kind of tower at the location specified. I've seen stations go silent for years at a time without ever notifying the FCC and without losing their licenses, while operators honest enough to report a silent station lose their licenses after being silent for 12 months. I've even heard - but I cannot verify the story - of one owner wholly claimed to be operating from a certain tower, and when informed of it, it was news to the tower owner!

I've wrestled with whether or not I should rat out these owners, especially at license renewal time, but in the end, I decided that the FCC really isn't even concerned. They have bigger fish to fry, like taking spectrum from OTA TV and selling it for broadband use. Then again, that might be the thing that makes the plans of these spectrum peddlers backfire: once the OTA TV band is reduced, there won't be any spectrum available in large cities for LPTV operators anyway, so those licenses the peddlers procured will become worthless in the end.

I have no qualms whatsoever about ratting them out. I know someone has complained about 3 of the phantoms around here, and I have decided to file a formal complaint about the other two ASAP... Kinda a pet peeve thing.

It's one thing for a LPTV broadcaster who is struggling to get on the air and quite another to get CP then falsely claim to be on the air.

I have no qualms whatsoever about ratting them out. I know someone has complained about 3 of the phantoms around here, and I have decided to file a formal complaint about the other two ASAP... Kinda a pet peeve thing.

It's one thing for a LPTV broadcaster who is struggling to get on the air and quite another to get CP then falsely claim to be on the air.

I had decided that the FCC just didn't care; I guess we'll see then.

More VHF increases coming to the northeast.

WNYT-12 in Albany wants to boost from 15 kW to 30 kW.

The big deal, though, is a four-way interference agreement that involves:

WABC-7 New York from 26.9 kW to 34 kW
WXXA-7 Albany from 10 kW to 15 kW
WWNY-7 Watertown from 34 kW to 42 kW
WBNG-7 Binghamton from 20.4 kW to 34 kW

- Trip

AMENDMENT OF SECTION SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS (LINCOLN, NEBRASKA). Substituted channel 15 for channel 51 at Lincoln, Nebraska for station KFXL-TV. (Dkt No. 11-192 RM-11646 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 01/26/2012 by R&O. (DA No. 12-91).

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-91A1.pdf

I've read that congress is preparing to auction of some parts of the broadcast TV spectrum for other uses, such as wireless internet.

Does anyone here know more about this (or is it being discussed in some other topic)? What spectrum exactly? Are some channels going away (parts of UHF, or VHF-Lo, or VHF-Hi), or is this per channel, per market, depending on the local channel assignments? In some parts of the country, there doesn't appear to be that much available spectrum, to the point that getting new broadcast licenses or power increases is difficult.

I like my broadcast HDTV, and I don't want congress doing anything to remove the broadcasts I receive.

I read this here, but there's not enough technical info:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/business/media/congress-to-sell-public-airwaves-to-pay-benefits.html?ref=technology

AVS Official Topic - The FCC & Broadcast Spectrum (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216722)

WGAL translator channel 49 Harrisburg, PA is now broadcasting. I am receiving it very well at 40 miles to the south.

How will the fill in translators be treated in the auction and repacking? Will they be considered primary under their full service parent's license or will they be considered secondary LDs?

FYI
link to article about class A LPTV titled "More steps toward tv band clearing"

http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/03/articles/broadcast/more-steps-toward-tv-band-clearing/

The first paragraph follows

The thinning of the ranks of Class A TV stations continues. We reported recently that the FCC has started to propose the downgrading of a number of Class A television stations to LPTV status, presumably to make room for the almighty broadband to take over TV spectrum. The stations targeted in the first round of that effort had (a) failed to file Children’s TV Reports and (b) failed to respond to FCC’s inquiries about the whereabouts of those reports. (The Commission later fined a number of other stations which had also failed to file kidvid reports; they escaped the dreaded downgrading because they had at least responded to the FCC’s inquiries.)

FYI
link to article about class A LPTV titled "More steps toward tv band clearing"

http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/03/articles/broadcast/more-steps-toward-tv-band-clearing/

The first paragraph follows

The thinning of the ranks of Class A TV stations continues. We reported recently that the FCC has started to propose the downgrading of a number of Class A television stations to LPTV status, presumably to make room for the almighty broadband to take over TV spectrum. The stations targeted in the first round of that effort had (a) failed to file Children’s TV Reports and (b) failed to respond to FCC’s inquiries about the whereabouts of those reports. (The Commission later fined a number of other stations which had also failed to file kidvid reports; they escaped the dreaded downgrading because they had at least responded to the FCC’s inquiries.)

Also don't forget that the FCC has a Sept 2015 shutdown date of analog LPs. Many analog PS either can't or won't switch to digital and will be shut down. So easy way to free up spectrum for them without having to cough up cash.

They should have required the end of analog low power tv much sooner than 2015!

Hopefully Canada will require the end of analog full power tv in the "non mandatory markets" and the end of low power analog tv in all markets on the same date, and Mexico will require the end of all analog tv, full or low power, nationwide on the same date. That way tv manufacturers can start leaving analog tuners off of North American models starting with the 2016 model year. This would force Central American NTSC countries to get on board quickly also.

When will public safety have to vacate the T-Band?

http://urgentcomm.com/policy_and_law/commentary/nation-network-unknowns-20120313/

They should have required the end of analog low power tv much sooner than 2015!.

That will be here before you know it. 2009 doesn't seem that long ago.

Also don't forget that the FCC has a Sept 2015 shutdown date of analog LPs. Many analog PS either can't or won't switch to digital and will be shut down. So easy way to free up spectrum for them without having to cough up cash.

If a station is not Class A, the spectrum it uses is already free for theft use. LPTVs are secondary and can be forced to move or shut down altogether at any time without compensation. So, for a majority of LPTV stations, the 2015 deadline isn't holding up anything.

As for Class A stations, they were given primary status in exchange for certain obligations, such as minimum 3 hours locally-produced programming per week and filing reports for children's television. If they're not living up to their obligations, why should they continue to enjoy primary status? I'm with the FCC on this one.

Here's a hypothetical. I'll use the Dallas market only for illustration and this doesn't imply this would ever happen here.

Let's say Ion's KPXD/68 (RF-42) wishes to compensate Daystar's KDTN/2 (RF-43) to trade virtual channel numbers. The rationale might be that a general market station such as KPXD wants the "status" of being identified as channel 2 instead of the arguably less prestigious 68. Daystar would simply rebrand as channel 68 and perhaps pocket the money.

No facilities would change (they're both pretty comparable anyway). Would the FCC allow this under the ATSC rules for channel mapping?

I ask because long, long ago, I worked at GE's Nashville facility. A facility swap happened back in 1973 where our television station (WSIX-TV/8) worked out an arrangement with Metro's NCE WDCN/2 to switch facilities. WSIX-TV/8 became WNGE/2 and WDCN/2 became WDCN/8 (now WNPT).

Frankly, it was a wash since the move to channel 2 didn't really enhance the signal in the heart of the DMA. The idea was that moving from 8 to 2 would put us closer to the other big guys in the market, WSM-TV/4 and WLAC-TV/5. It never worked out to GE's benefit and as far as I know, channel 2 is still mired in third place.

A similar swap happened in New Orleans between the old WVUE/12 and WYES/8. I believe that was a win for WVUE.

Nowadays, the channel number is merely a virtual entity. Thus, it seems that unless prohibited by the commission, a trade of such a entity could be done should a station want to do a makeover.

From what I understand, stations under common control can share or exchange virtual channels. The ATSC rules otherwise bind the virtual channel to the previous analog, but I don't think the FCC is being too rigid about it. On the other hand, KUSI was going to move to 18-1 (they're RF18) when KDTF-LD was going to sign on as 51-1 (RF51) but ultimately did not do so.

- Trip

It would be so much simpler, easier and nicer if everyone would just use their real transmitter channel number...but that ain't going to happen.

A good change would be if a station wanted to use their transmitter channel number instead of their old analog channel number, they could if they wanted to. This requirement of having to use your old analog channel number for your virtual channel on digital is nothing more than something to appease the stations who want to keep their old image, i.e. FOX2, CBS5, ABC7, etc. Some stations would love to use their digital channel ID. A station that is transmitting on channel 8 but using virtual channel 52, for example, probably would love to ID as channel 8. If a station doesn't care if they keep their old analog image and wanted to change to a new digital image, why not let them?

This PSIP ID business is nothing but a pain in the you know what when it comes to trying to explain to users that to get channel 2 you need a UHF antenna. I've always thought that this virtual channel numbering was a crazy idea from the beginning.

And check this out... Here in the San Francisco Bay Area we have virtual 2 on RF 44, Virtual 44 on RF 45; 4 on 38, 38 on 39; Virtual channel 1 (yes one) on 42, 42 on RF 14, Virtual 14 on 51; 54 on RF 50, virtual 50 on 32, 32 on 33. It can really get crazy!

KAXT 1 got that because they and KRCB 23 were both analog 22. Some tuners couldn't handle both of them being 22.

Our NBC station, KNTV, transmits on channel 12, has a virtual channel of 11, but is channel 3 on cable. They never mention their channel number. They're simply "NBC Bay Area". :)

Larry
SF

The virtual channel scheme is a mess for anyone like me who lives in a fringe area. Most of the TVs don't have software designed to handle virtual channel conflicts.

For example, I have KLFB virtual and real 22, KRCB virtual 22 and real 23, KEZT virtual and real 23, and KBSV virtual 23 and real 15. No matter how they're scanned in, there's always one station I can't tune to.

I wish that every TV had an option for direct RF entry. At least there would never be any RF channels that you couldn't tune to.

Chuck

If a station is not Class A, the spectrum it uses is already free for theft use. LPTVs are secondary and can be forced to move or shut down altogether at any time without compensation. So, for a majority of LPTV stations, the 2015 deadline isn't holding up anything.

As for Class A stations, they were given primary status in exchange for certain obligations, such as minimum 3 hours locally-produced programming per week and filing reports for children's television. If they're not living up to their obligations, why should they continue to enjoy primary status? I'm with the FCC on this one.

So what does that have to do with what I posted since you quoted me.

If a station is not Class A, the spectrum it uses is already free for theft use
That's why I am so concerned about the fill-in translators that seem to be licensed only as LDs. The whole point of the fill-in translators is to provide reception that was lost because of the digital transition. If they are not protected as primary during the auction/repacking then that is proof that the government wants to screw the public.

So what does that have to do with what I posted since you quoted me.

I think I misread your point; my bad.

That's why I am so concerned about the fill-in translators that seem to be licensed only as LDs. The whole point of the fill-in translators is to provide reception that was lost because of the digital transition. If they are not protected as primary during the auction/repacking then that is proof that the government wants to screw the public.

It all depends on how the LP stations are licensed. If they're "replacement translators", then they are inseparable from the full-service license. They share the same call sign and facility ID as the primary, are renewed along with the primary, and automatically go with the primary if the primary is sold. Replacement translators should have the same rights as the primary. Fill-in translators that are licensed as separate LPTV stations won't have any protection.

KAIL MYTV Fresno was analog channel 53. They were digital RF channel 7 pre transition and stayed there post transition. They now map to virtual channel 7, not 53. I think someone posted that they have a waiver from the FCC allowing them to do this. Does the FCC grant these kind of waivers to any station that asks for one, or do they sometimes deny them. Fresno was an all UHF market in the analog days (except for a few LPs starting in the 90s). I wonder if any other stations in Fresno protested KAIL's mapping to 7, since the other stations all have "UHF" virtual channel numbers, including one other real VHF.


Do any PBS stations promote themselves by channel number anymore? KVPT Fresno never advertises itself as "channel 18" (they used to many years ago). KCET, when it was PBS, didn't advertise itself as "channel 28" (they still don't). Apparently the station in New York City calls itself "Thirteen" as prominately displayed at the end of programs they produce.

A few, but not many. WLVT and WFWA both brand as "PBS39" but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. The reason is that so many PBS stations are carried on multiple channel numbers, whether through additional full-service signals or through translators. Plus, with cable being as prominent as it is, the channel number usually isn't consistent for the PBS station anyway.

- Trip

I wonder if TV stations will follow the lead of FM stations and brand themselves with all sorts of names? The only station I know doing that around here is KOTR which calls themselves "The Otter." They also advertise as "My 11" because of their cable channel even though they are still analog on RF 2.

Chuck

I suspect that if radio stations had network affiliations the way TV stations do, they would not use those names. If you look around at some of the independent (and My Network TV) stations, you'll see some odd names floating around. My Network TV in Seattle is KZJO "Joe TV." WCIU in Chicago is "The U." WMOR in Tampa is "More TV." WJTC Pensacola is "UTV44." KUBE Houston is (shockingly) "The Kube."

- Trip

Do any PBS stations promote themselves by channel number anymore?WTTW in Chicago still calls itself "Channel 11" and has "wttw11" in one of its on-screen bugs.

A good change would be if a station wanted to use their transmitter channel number instead of their old analog channel number, they could if they wanted to.

Larry
SF
It can't be done with stations like WPCW (RF 11, Virtual 19.1) unless stations like WPXI (RF 48, Virtual 11.1,11.2) are willing to permanently give up their analog channel number. IMHO every other full service licensee should be given the discretion to permanently choose their RF channel number rather than their old analog number.

Do any PBS stations promote themselves by channel number anymore?

KAET 8 Phoenix almost exclusively brands as "Channel 8" and seldom displays the call letters apart from the legal ID.

Its signal is sent to 13 translators statewide, seven of which are still analog, so for OTA, it's still necessary to tune to a different channel number to get "channel 8" in those communities. However, since DTV rules allow a translator to use its primary station's channel as its major channel number, the six translators that are now digital are also "channel 8" on OTA tuners in their communities.

It appears that most cable companies in the translator communities also have KAET on channel 8 on their systems, as do the satellite providers, except in Yuma, which is a separate Nielsen market, but has no PBS station of its own.

I too like using the actual frequency rather than a virtual channel. But I can see why the FCC disallowed this. The biggest problem isn't the branding, after all TV stations and networks have survived rebranding, it was the fact that some of the stations would've had to rebrand and others wouldn't have.

Also some stations used old analog channels for their new digital channel.

For instance in Chicago WGBO, was analog 66 and digital 53. Since they couldn't stay on 53 nor move back to 66, both channels being reallocated, they had to use channel 38. This would confuse people as WCPX was analog 38 and now on digital 43.

It makes no sense to abandon the old analog number either and rebrand to a digital. If you hit channel 38 in it'll automatically bring up virtual 66. And if you hit 66 in the TV it brings up virtual 66 as well. That is two chances to get to your channel.

The only fair way was if everyone had to move to a new channel, which would never have happened.

Not sure why this is such an issue. For example in my area on Charter Cable FOX 17 is on channel 3 and CW 58 is on channel 12. Obviously people can figure out where to find these channels. So the fact that with OTA virtual is not always the same as real is basically the same thing.

It makes no sense to abandon the old analog number either and rebrand to a digital. If you hit channel 38 in it'll automatically bring up virtual 66. And if you hit 66 in the TV it brings up virtual 66 as well. That is two chances to get to your channel.

That depends on how your TV works and was one the things I was complaining about. Some TVs will allow this and some won't. My Sony will allow this, my DVR accepts only virtual numbers, and my portable will accept direct RF entry if you preface the number with the minus (-) sign but there's no way to get to anything other than the -1 sub channel that way. It's a mess.

Chuck

For instance in Chicago WGBO, was analog 66 and digital 53. Since they couldn't stay on 53 nor move back to 66, both channels being reallocated, they had to use channel 38. This would confuse people as WCPX was analog 38 and now on digital 43.

We had stations in that same situation here in the San Francisco Bay Area. KTVU 2 was on 56 digital. Didn't want to go back to 2 and couldn't us 56, so they're on 44 now. KRON 4 was on 57, and like KTVU, they didn't want to use the low VHF channel and ended up on 38. I can see where using the digital channel number wouldn't mean a thing in those cases. Both 38 and 44 were analog channels before the transition to digital.


If you hit channel 38 in it'll automatically bring up virtual 66. And if you hit 66 in the TV it brings up virtual 66 as well. That is two chances to get to your channel.

That depends on what tuner you have. You're lucky if you can do that. Some will not recognize the RF channel number so you have to enter the virtual channel number. It only recognizes information picked up from PSIP. Unless it picks up the PSIP information when it scans there's no way to see that channel. Some allow you to enter the RF channel and will give you the station on the transmitter channel. It doesn't switch to the virtual channel. I've also got one tuner that doesn't pay any attention to the virtual channel. You have to know the RF transmitter channel because that's all it shows. There are so many variations from tuner to tuner.

Larry
SF

Looks like KGUN and KCFG reached an interference agreement that will allow KGUN to raise power to 36.5 kW.

- Trip

My Vizio is strictly virtual channel only. All of my other digital tuners will allow tuning by RF channel except if that RF channel is another station's virtual channel. My 15 inch Coby I use outdoors mostly OTA is very flexible: for example I can tune KGET by entering either 17-1 (virtual channel) or simply 17 or 25-1 (real channel) or simply 25. KBFX-CA, however, must be tuned by it's virtual channel 58-1 or 58, since it's real channel of 29 is the virtual channel of KBAK (real channel 33).

http://blog.broadcastengineering.com/blog-opinions/2012/04/23/verizon-proposes-sale-of-wireless-spectrum-as-broadcasters-cry-fowl/

Here are some highlights from Michael Grotticelli's article linked above:


Verizon Wireless said it might conduct an open sale of the wireless spectrum it purchased late last year, which could be worth billions of dollars. That statement, included in a proposal it sent to the FCC, caused an angry outcry from the broadcast industry and consumer advocate groups that think the Telco industry clearly has all of the wireless spectrum it needs. Broadcasters are locked in a bitter dispute with the Telco and computer industries over the availability of wireless spectrum and the government’s plan to reclaim frequencies now used by terrestrial TV stations and auction it off to the highest bidder.

“Until today’s announcement, Verizon denied that it was hoarding spectrum,” said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press, a public interest group. “This sale demonstrates that Verizon has in fact warehoused spectrum and the company will likely profit handsomely from this spectrum speculation strategy. The undeniable truth is a disproportionate amount of the country’s most valuable spectrum is concentrated in the hands of Verizon and AT&T, who enjoy market shares that dwarf other sectors of the American economy,”

"Verizon’s proposal is contingent on the company getting government approval for three deals to buy spectrum from cable companies and Leap Wireless for a total of about $4 billion."

Note that there are reasonable people who believe the real deal Verizon is making with cable companies is an unspoken agreement not to expand FiOS (and the competition it would bring cable) in Verizon areas that don't already have FiOS.

If anyone's looking for an HDHR3, they're at Woot.com today for $70.

- Trip

Sinclair didn't even let the ink dry on the Freedom deal before petitioning the FCC to allow a waiver of the freeze so that WRGB can be moved from channel 6 to channel 19.

EDIT: Reading further, included in the document is a statement of support from WPVI, who says they would request an increase to 62.9 kW on channel 6 if WRGB is granted the move to channel 19.

- Trip

The FCC has started trying to figure out how to clear stations off of channel 51. See here. http://www.rabbitears.info/tvq.php?city=&state=&mktid=&call=&facid=&chlo=&chhi=&vchlo=&vchhi=&serv=&status=&appid=&prefix=&apparn=&ant=&antmak=&antmod=&owner=&party=WTB&request=list&sort=

- Trip

The FCC has started trying to figure out how to clear stations off of channel 51. See here. http://www.rabbitears.info/tvq.php?city=&state=&mktid=&call=&facid=&chlo=&chhi=&vchlo=&vchhi=&serv=&status=&appid=&prefix=&apparn=&ant=&antmak=&antmod=&owner=&party=WTB&request=list&sort=

- Trip

I'm not getting your link. They all say WTB.

WTB = Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Remember, it's not the stations that are themselves filing to move off of 51, the WTB is filing to move them involuntarily off of 51. The facilities are identical to the stations involved; just compare KGAN, for instance, to the 29 in Cedar Rapids. Power and height are the same, just different channel.

- Trip

WTB = Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Remember, it's not the stations that are themselves filing to move off of 51, the WTB is filing to move them involuntarily off of 51. The facilities are identical to the stations involved; just compare KGAN, for instance, to the 29 in Cedar Rapids. Power and height are the same, just different channel.

- Trip

Well with the incentive auctions 51 was going to go away anyways. The FCC might not get 120 MHz like they wanted but they'll get something. I don't like how they want to move Memphis to 27. Is it the FCC's goal to have Memphis an Nashville have all the same channel assignments? Both have a 5 and 23 already. When WTVF gets on 25 they'll be two 25's now they'll be two 27's if this goes through.

List of full power channel 51 licenses:

http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=&arn=&city=&chan=51&cha2=51&serv=DT&type=3&list=2

It’s ridiculous for the FCC to move stations from 51 to 38, 39, and 50 if they’re planning to clear that spectrum with an incentive auction.

List of full power channel 51 licenses:

http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=&arn=&city=&chan=51&cha2=51&serv=DT&type=3&list=2

It’s ridiculous for the FCC to move stations from 51 to 38, 39, and 50 if they’re planning to clear that spectrum with an incentive auction.

Nobody said the US Government was intelligent......especially the FCC.

Well with the incentive auctions 51 was going to go away anyways. The FCC might not get 120 MHz like they wanted but they'll get something. I don't like how they want to move Memphis to 27. Is it the FCC's goal to have Memphis an Nashville have all the same channel assignments? Both have a 5 and 23 already. When WTVF gets on 25 they'll be two 25's now they'll be two 27's if this goes through.

Lately it seems the FCC thinks that RF stops at the county line....in Texas we have issues with LDs on channels with a full power or a Class A 90 miles away causing issues....(and with the ducting along the Gulf Coast, we know a little about such things...KBMT in Beaumont, TX is LMAing RF43 and using it as a source for translator RF36 to the east; problem? The path to RF43, a LD, is right in line from RF36 site with a 60KW Class A at 2000ft 90miles away...a little ducting and you get the idea...not the picture ;)

Repacking the band is ludicrous if the FCC moves fwd with this 120MHz retaking...there is no room for all the FS and LD/CDs in there....and then add in the analogs going to digital..I hate to think about San Fran market or similar.....(shudder)

The FCC wants co-channeling in adjacent markets because they don't want anyone to watch out of market stations. It's all about DMA, DMA, DMA!!!

The FCC wants co-channeling in adjacent markets because they don't want anyone to watch out of market stations. It's all about DMA, DMA, DMA!!!

That has nothing to do with DMA. Repacking the number of stations necessary demands more co-channeling. The TV band will become nothing but a mess of interference in many markets that people will not want to put up with and will cause people to purchase services from the wireless companies to watch their programs. That is what the FCC is after. To destroy FREE OTA TV as we know it for the financial benefit of certain wireless companies. Cronyism. Plain and simple.

The FCC has started trying to figure out how to clear stations off of channel 51. See here. http://www.rabbitears.info/tvq.php?city=&state=&mktid=&call=&facid=&chlo=&chhi=&vchlo=&vchhi=&serv=&status=&appid=&prefix=&apparn=&ant=&antmak=&antmod=&owner=&party=WTB&request=list&sort=

- Trip

Good Luck with finding another frequency for WTAE, Pittsburgh. They would'nt be on channel 51 if another 1 Megawatt frequency was available.

Good Luck with finding another frequency for WTAE, Pittsburgh. They would'nt be on channel 51 if another 1 Megawatt frequency was available.

They have a LD on 22. Any reason why they can't convert that to a FP other than cost?

They have a LD on 22. Any reason why they can't convert that to a FP other than cost?

Too close to WFXP.

- Trip

I'm curious as to why WKEF in Dayton was not on the list of stations having to change channels

I think the list was only a beginning.

- Trip

They have a LD on 22. Any reason why they can't convert that to a FP other than cost?
According to a search on Trip's Rabbit Ears website it appears that channels 27 & 31 are the only open UHF frequencies for a full service station. Channel 31 would require the FCC to dispose of KDKA's application for a fill-in translator and who knows if either are suitable for a million watt ERP.

And it looks like WEPX Greenville has petitioned to relocate from channel 51 to 26. No paperwork yet.

- Trip