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

Nitewatchman

05-02-07, 08:29 PM

Stations do not have a choice in this. It is the law. Stations will brand with their analog channel numbers from now on, no matter what channel they actually transmit on.

Very true, as is everything else you've said about this ... However .....

The purpose of keeping the analog channel branding is to keep the public's confusion factor down.

And, IMO, the way I read the section of 2nd DTV review R&O as well as comments submitted by interested parties on this issue, I think it was also done to allow stations to keep their existing analog channel branding.

since any OTA tuner will be remapped to the old analog channel

Actually, RCA DTC-100 is one tuner that allows the user to turn off PSIP channel mapping and use/display to the user the actual RF channel number instead. MPEG program stream #'s are used instead of minor Channel #'s.

once a tuner has been scanned, it really doesn't matter since the old analog channel numbers will still be displayed.

#1).Tuners don't allways find all receivable channels via a "scan", sometimes different antenna adjustment is necessary to receive different stations.

This is a little easier to accomplish with a receiver that allows you to rescan/add channels with antenna in different direction if you have a outdoor, directional antenna which can generally be "aimed" in the right direction for any given station, but probably not as easy if there are receivers that don't allow manual tuning or "scanning in"/adding a single channel/station by RF channel if you're futzing around with posistioning of indoor antennas .....

#2). The PSIP VCT info sent by each station containing the remapped channel info for that station(the major channel # which corresponds to the "old" analog channel #) can't be decoded until signal near threshold for reception(i.e. decoding of audio video streams) is acheived.

However, most DTV receivers I've used can and do show some sort of an indication of signal when DTV signal is as much as about 10db below threshold required for reception, and probably about 8db below what is required to decode the PSIP info. On one receiver, careful examination of its "AGC" readings is one way this can be accomplished --- including regardless of the multipath conditions which in some cases can result in a "signal strength"(yeah right, but that's what it says it is) reading of "ZERO", even in some cases when the signal is actually quite strong ...on another receiver here, its so called "DTV signal meter" is generally sufficient in this regard, and again, will indicate a DTV signal on a RF channel well below what is required to decode the PSIP channel remapping info ....

In other words, in some cases, OTA viewers will need to know the actual RF channel # used, and the receiver will need to provide a non-confusing and intuitive way for them to individually manually "tune in", or "scan in" a single RF channel and allow the user to utilize signal meter(s) while adjusting antenna for best results to even be able to achieve a condition where the channel remapping info can be received+from then on be used by the receiver so the station "shows up" as it's "old analog channel #" via the channel remapping .....

All DTV receivers (I've owned 4 of them, different models, 5 if you count my newest DTV tuner in a PC) I've owned have some sort of way to do this to some extent, although I find this process is more cumbersome+less "intuitive" with some receivers vs. others.

Other than the DTC-100-* which I no longer own, and software such as Tsreader with which you use the RF channel to "tune with" --- the best receiver (IMO) I've used in this regard, in addition to a "auto channel scan" feature, has a "channel edit" list with all RF channel numbers 2-69 shown, and the user simply selects(or deselects - the autochannel scan automatically selects any RF channel in the list it achieves a lock on a signal on) the RF channel numbers for the stations in their area ... then, When/if the receiver achieves a lock on a signal from any of those "channels" you've selected as "active" in the list, the VCT info is stored+used by the receiver, and from then on the station can be "tuned to", or channel up/down "surfed to" by the VCT Major Channel # (or major+minor). The VCT major/Minor Channel #'s are the ones displayed as well, unless a signal lock isn't achieved, in which case it's the RF channel Number. Also, *every* time you tune to a "in use" major channel number, it automatically updates whatever info from the PSIP it's storing to whatever the broadcaster is currently sending, so when changes are made to MPEG info (PAT/PMT/PID's/etc) or PSIP tables or fields at the station which sometimes "upset" other receiver's which need a rescan, this receiver gets it automatically+doesn't need a new "rescan" ...

Also, with that receiver, it's possible at any time to "manually" tune directly to a RF channel #, any RF channel, including ones you haven't "selected" in the list or that haven't been found by autoscan - The only exception being a RF Channel # that corresponds to a VCT major channel number for a station which is added (by it's RF channel #) in the "channel edit number list"), and of course whose PSIP info had previously been decoded. Fortunetly, all one has to do is "deselect" that channel from the channel edit list if one wants to tune to that RF channel involved.

Another receiver model I have allows you to "scan in" a single RF channel while looking at a signal meter, that works as well.

* - other than the DTC-100 with the channel mapping turned off, which was the least confusing and "best" option for me+family when stations weren't required to do the channel remapping and some were doing it and some weren't ..

Although TSID should(and does from what I've seen) solve any problems that might arise when a "channel scan" occurs - such as if say in some cases via "dx" if multiple stations with identical major/channel #'s are received --- and it shouldn't be a problem currently in almost all cases as the analog station is transmitting there, currently, however :

I suspect the issue on some receivers of not being able to "scan in" a single RF channel, or to manually "tune" to a RF channel # that corresponds to a VCT Major channel # already in memory(at least without rescanning with antenna disconnected to clear all that info out) might become an issue in the future for some folks when those RF channels currently in use by analogs, in some cases will be used by other DTV stations.

I've heard rumors this might be the case with some receiver models(although I haven't seen any of these personally) --- Any Receiver which would only allow a full scan and a "scan in additional channels/add digital channels with antenna aimed a differet way without disrupting the channels found via full scan" options via autoscan features ONLY are probably the worst sort of thing to have in this regard IMO, as, in that case, you can only "guess" at where to posistion the antenna for any given station you want to add without the help of any "signal meter"+ in some cases some users will have to be doing a lot of "scanning" around ....

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

I guess what I'm saying is, I wish they would come up with one, good "standardized" way to implement these necessary "scan in or manually tune a single channel" functions on *all* future receivers so it allways works the same for everyone, *and* would work for everyone and anyone no matter what might occur for cases when it is necesssary allows option of manual tuning(or scanning in a single indivdual RF channel) to *any* RF channel(2-51 post analog shut off) along with the use of some sort of "signal diagnostics" tools (AGC readings, Signal quality readings, SNR readings/etc) on an individual basis, by RF channel # ...

The FCC's posistion on this causing "less confusion" for the public, as it pertains to OTA viewers along with how some of the "channel tuning" features are implemented on some receivers, really seems only 100% applicable to me as it pertains to OTA viewers(those who are not getting guide info from the DBS companies/etc which If I understand correctly in some cases can also help with this sort of thing) who are lucky enough to do a autoscan and receive all their local stations they want, or can potentially receive via the "scan" ...

Hopefully that's the case for many folks, but I know it's not the case for some, and I expect, even now many folks have never seen many stations in their area they can actually recieve because their antenna wasn't orientated the "right way" when they did an "autoscan" ..... while that's true for analog as well with most modern analog TV's, it's very straightfoward to "tune" to the RF channel of an analog signal (and the actual RF analog channel #'s that correspond to what the tuners "say" they are are certianly well known+publicized) and get the picture and sound on the channel in a way that makes perfect sense and allows for easy+intutive adjustment of antenna for best reception results on screen .... That's not the case if you have a digital channel not found by "autoscan", where you need to be able to tune to RF channel look at some sort of meter to adjust signal so that you can get the channel remapping info ....

Also, there's the potential issue of the virtual channel #'s regarding the potential of some folks becoming confused about whether they need a UHF+VHF or just a UHF antenna, based on the virtual channels vs the actual frequency of transmission(which the "RF" channel number does correspond to via a well known "channel table" in use for many decades ...) ...

It's nice they're interested in making things less "confusing" and "easier", but sometimes, even with all good intentions of making things "easier" for many or most can also make things more complicated for others if some necessary more "manual" functions aren't available on the receivers as well ....

Brian_O

05-04-07, 01:33 AM

Stations do not have a choice in this. It is the law. Stations will brand with their analog channel numbers from now on, no matter what channel they actually transmit on.

Actually it is merely an FCC rule that only came into effect in October 2004. Prior to that many stations were using the actual RF channel as their major channel number for their digital streams. As such, it can be changed by the FCC at any time.

Once the analogue transmitters are shut down, it is quite possible that the FCC will simply abolish the rule and let the individual stations decide. However, in some markets such a change could lead to disputes. For example, in Burlington Vermont which station would call itself channel 22? WVNY whch has used 22 since the 1960's but will be broadcasting on RF channel 13? Or WCAX that has been known as Channel 3 since 1954 but will be broadcasting on 22 starting in 2009?

foxeng

05-04-07, 05:57 AM

Actually it is merely an FCC rule that only came into effect in October 2004.

Last time I looked, a FCC rule was law.

Once the analogue transmitters are shut down, it is quite possible that the FCC will simply abolish the rule and let the individual stations decide.

Very unlikely according to the FCC themselves.

PinkSplice

05-04-07, 10:14 AM

Last time I looked, a FCC rule was law.

Very unlikely according to the FCC themselves.

OW! OW! Enough with the tire iron! I'm *not* Bob Miller....

greywolf

05-04-07, 11:46 AM

Laws, rules and regulations.... If you want to go cross-eyed see http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html

foxeng

05-04-07, 12:37 PM

OW! OW! Enough with the tire iron! I'm *not* Bob Miller....

No tire iron. You seem to think the FCC with change their mind on this. They have said it is done. They will not reconsider it. As far as they are concerned, it is a closed subject. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that? That is all.

Nitewatchman

05-04-07, 02:35 PM

Prior to that many stations were using the actual RF channel as their major channel number for their digital streams.

At that time, some stations were doing that, and some stations were using analog channel # for PSIP VCT Major channel number as was "recommended" ....

That situation was the worst possible combination, IMO. Either everyone using the RF channel #, or as it is required currently is much better situation, IMO ..

You seem to think the FCC with change their mind on this. They have said it is done. They will not reconsider it. .

Yep ... Also something to keep in mind here is that the way it's being done is something that ATSC and groups such as MSTV "approve", and, I think it's really "part" of ATSC A 65/B PSIP standard, which was adopted/mandated pretty much in its entirety by FCC duing 2nd DTV review ....

Brian_O

05-04-07, 07:05 PM

Last time I looked, a FCC rule was law.

.

Not quite. While an FCC rule has the same force as a law, it is not a law. An FCC rule can be changed by the FCC, while a law can only be changed by Congress with both Houses acting in unison. That's a big difference.

For example, the analogue cutoff date of February 17, 2009 and the channels that can be used by TV broadcasters after the analogue cutoff (2-36 and 38-51) were both laws set by Congress and cannot be changed by the FCC since there was no language in the 2005 Bill (finally passed in Feb 2006) which would allow them to do so. On the other hand, in the legal sense, the regulation under which broadcasters must use their analogue channel number as their digital major channel number is nothing more than an administrative rule set by the FCC. As such it can be abolished by the FCC, if and when they see fit to do so.

One of the FCC's main justifications for setting the rule in October 2004 (many years into the transition) disappears when the analogue transmitters are shut down and there are many stations that would like to use the physical channel as their "identity". While using two different channel numbers for the same station is confusing to viewers, calling oneself channel 3 while broadcasting on channel 22, for example, is even more confusing: different channel number, different antenna type required. There will be pressure from many stations themselves to dump the rule and the FCC will listen. Whether or not they act remains to be seen.

foxeng

05-04-07, 07:46 PM

Unfortunately, our FCC doesn't work like your Industry Canada. No one sees this rule changing. It would cause more confusion than what is in place now.

dline

05-04-07, 08:12 PM

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

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

HIPAR

05-04-07, 10:42 PM

Unfortunately, our FCC doesn't work like your Industry Canada. No one sees this rule changing. It would cause more confusion than what is in place now.

Brian_O, a Canadian, has a very good understanding of how the FCC operates.

They do indeed answer directly to Congress who delegated them authority through the Communications Act of 1934 to handle the administrative and technical details of telecommunications law. And, for all intents and purposes, the rules they make to handle those details do carry the weight of law. They have an Enforcement Bureau to make that so and Administrative Law Judges to review the legal issues when a rule is contested.

For now, they have bigger issues than the channel moniker numbers.

--- CHAS

milehighmike

05-05-07, 03:15 AM

All laws passed by Congress are enforced by the appropriate federal agency, be it the TSA, FAA, IRS, Attorney General, or the FCC, et al. The agencies that enforce federal laws are usually authorized, as part of a statute passed by Congress, to write Regulations which the FCC calls Rules. Regulations are intended to provide clarification to the actual statute, give guidance on compliance with the statute, administer penalities for failure to comply with the statute, and clarify Congress' intent in enacting a statute. Sometimes they can be very broad, sometimes they are very focused.

A federal agency cannot just write a Regulation/Rule because it "feels like it" or because the public or broadcasters want it. Each Regulation/Rule must be based on applicable law.

So the FCC was authorized to administer a law that provided for, among other things, how digital TV stations would ID themselves via channel numbers. The FCC wrote a Rule that they believed complied with that statute and they may change/rewrite that Rule as long as it remains within the parameters of the applicable statute. Regulations/Rules are also subject to federal court review and may be thrown out by a court.

The bottom line - the FCC can probably change the rule regarding station ID's. Whether or not they will is another matter.

foxeng

05-05-07, 08:19 AM

So the FCC was authorized to administer a law that provided for, among other things, how digital TV stations would ID themselves via channel numbers. The FCC wrote a Rule that they believed complied with that statute and they may change/rewrite that Rule as long as it remains within the parameters of the applicable statute. Regulations/Rules are also subject to federal court review and may be thrown out by a court.

The bottom line - the FCC can probably change the rule regarding station ID's. Whether or not they will is another matter.

All true and they have said they have no intentions of reviewing the channel moniker issue. They had a lengthy R&O comment, reply and re-reply on this issue. This was all gone over, including specific comments quoted pro and con, in the 2nd DTV Review in 2004 so there IS justification in the ruling for what they have ruled on.

The rest of this is pie in the sky until something out of Washington states different.

dline

05-05-07, 03:45 PM

I second what foxeng said, plus ... let's face it, this whole thing was pushed through by broadcasters who know that lay people often think in terms of channel numbers rather than legal call signs. We often don't think in terms of KWWL or KCRG even though they'd like us to; we think in terms of "channel 7" and "channel 9."

Now, I've noticed over the past few years that more and more stations are putting their call letters or network more front and center, perhaps as a hedge against this digital conversion -- for instance, "NewsCenter 13" in Des Moines became "WHO-TV 13 News" in the late '90s before going to "Channel 13 News" in the past couple of years -- but a good chunk of the population is still going to call them simply "channel 13." (Of course, in their case, they're going BACK to channel 13 after the transition, so why did I bring them up?)

Nitewatchman

05-09-07, 08:11 PM

Couple of quick questions :

#1). I wonder when we might see a new DTV table of allotments for post transistion, or if/when we might see a "final" tentative channel designation list ?

#2). Has a NPRM, or other detailed document been published yet for 3rd DTV review? I saw the info in the press releases from the 4/25 FCC meeting, but can't find any detailed text yet ... Maybe it's not there yet, or I missed it/not looking in the right place, or there isn't going to be one before an R&O(that would seem unusual) ?

Thanks,

sebenste

05-10-07, 12:27 AM

foxeng

05-10-07, 06:10 AM

#1). I wonder when we might see a new DTV table of allotments for post transistion, or if/when we might see a "final" tentative channel designation list ?

There is suppose to be one this year sometime but with the way the FCC has been running behind on this stuff, no one is sure and the FCC hasn't given a timetable. It may come out when the results of the 3rd DTV Review is announced. The 2nd DTV Review is when the full power rules came out.

#2). Has a NPRM, or other detailed document been published yet for 3rd DTV review? I saw the info in the press releases from the 4/25 FCC meeting, but can't find any detailed text yet ... Maybe it's not there yet, or I missed it/not looking in the right place, or there isn't going to be one before an R&O(that would seem unusual) ?

The FCC is taking comments on the items listed at the meeting and they will be the basis of the R&O that will be issued when the 3rd DTV Review is released. Remember it took almost 18 months from the time the FCC announced the 2nd DTV Review and the issuance of the R&O from it. Let's hope the FCC doesn't take as long this time or the Feb 17, 2009 deadline will be here before the R&O is issued.

Nitewatchman

05-10-07, 10:20 AM

Thanks for the replies ..

Let's hope the FCC doesn't take as long this time or the Feb 17, 2009 deadline will be here before the R&O is issued.

Especially since one of the issues to be addressed regards a new form to be submitted by Dec 2007 and all of the things listed in press release they are going to address in 3rd DTV review seem to be "appropriate" to address before shut off occurs ..

"Chop chop" FCC ;)

afiggatt

05-18-07, 04:38 PM

There is a huge dump of digital transition documents and decisions posted today on the FCC website under the May 18 headlines at http://www.fcc.gov/. This should start this thread up again. :D

dline

05-19-07, 03:44 PM

There is a huge dump of digital transition documents and decisions posted today on the FCC website under the May 18 headlines at http://www.fcc.gov/. This should start this thread up again. :DI read some of that stuff yesterday and summarized some of it in the Programming section, but (understandably) it takes a back seat to the "upfronts" and those long-awaited fall schedule announcements. Still, it's vitally important for the DT transition.

I read four things from the May 18 FCC postings.

First, they admit, they've granted a lot of extensions -- more than 180 of the "full-power" deadline (a.k.a. "use it or lose it"), and 140 of the construction deadline.

Second, they break down the reasons behind the extensions, many of which are understandable (i.e.: inadequate power supply, siting dispute with local authorities, major hurricane damage, the fact that a temporary "side-mount" antenna can't fully duplicate the coverage of that station's analog top-mount, etc.) But they also make it clear that there's no blank check, admonishing three stations and informing seven stations that they will be forever consigned to lower power than originally authorized.

Third, they're proposing to tighten the rules. Thirty-two stations claimed "financial hardship" as their reason for seeking an extension. The Commission wants to limit that excuse in future to licensees who can prove that they're bankrupt, under receivership, or have had negative cash flow for the past three years. They also want to eliminate lack of equipment as an excuse because, "At this point in the transition, we believe stations have had ample time to order the equipment required to provide digital service and do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to grant stations additional time to construct because of equipment delays, absent extraordinary circumstances."

Finally, they made it clear that analog WILL BE SHUT OFF on Februay 17, 2009. That date is set by an act of Congress, and the FCC cannot and will not change it.

HIPAR

05-19-07, 04:30 PM

foxeng

05-19-07, 05:38 PM

I'm confused about extensions. What difference does it make when DTV construction is completed so long as it happens before Feb 2009? Anyone not ready then should be ordered to relinquish their license.

--- CHAS
Those stations not on the air digitally after 3am local Feb 17, 2009 WILL NOT HAVE A LICENSE to broadcast PERIOD.

This proceeding handled just waiver applications for the July 1, 2005/6 full power deadline and how to handle them pre-transition. The FCC has been on this replication of service kick from the beginning so if a station wanted to maintain the same post transition coverage, they had to build out pre-transition to at least their analog coverage (or 80% of their digital coverage) to maintain it post transition. That is what has driven every extension review. Those stations who can't replicate due to technical issues and plan on moving to either their analog or a third channel, it would be silly to spend the money to build something that doesn't meet the FCC's requirement, be penalized for it and then spend the money all over again to meet the FCC's requirement post transition.

Here is how the FCC broke out the extensions:

Stations Granted Additional Six-Month “Use or Lose” Waivers - If the stations do not build to these permits, they loose full coverage protection post transition.
Call Sign Licensee City ST
KATV-DT KATV, LLC Little Rock AR
KBEH-DT Bela TV, LLC Oxnard CA
KBFD-DT The Allen Broadcasting Corp. Honolulu HI
KBJR-DT KBJR License, Inc. Superior WI
KBSV-DT Bet-Nahrain, Inc. Ceres CA
KCEC-DT Entravision Holdings, LLC Denver CO
KCSG-DT Southwest Media, LLC Cedar City UT
KCSM-DT San Mateo Community College District San Mateo CA
KCWC-DT Central Wyoming College Lander WY
KDLH-DT
Malara Broadcast Group of Duluth
Licensee, LLC Duluth MN
KECI-DT BlueStone License Holdings, Inc. Missoula MT
KEPR-DT
Fisher Broadcasting – Washington TV,
LLC Pasco WA
KETC-DT
St. Louis Regional Educational and Public
Television Commission St. Louis MO
KEVN-DT KEVN, Inc. Debtor in Possession Rapid City SD
KFBB-DT MMM License II, LLC Great Falls MT
KFTR-DT Telefutura Los Angeles, LLC Ontario CA
KFXB-DT
Christian Television Network of Iowa,
LLC Dubuque IA
KFYR-DT
North Dakota Television License Sub,
LLC Bismarck ND
KGCW-DT Burlington Television Acquisition Corp. Burlington IA
KHNL-DT Raycom National, Inc. Honolulu HI
KHIZ-DT Sunbelt Television, Inc. Barstow CA
KIDY-DT Sage Broadcasting Corporation San Angelo TX
KIMA-DT Fisher Broadcasting, Inc. Yakima WA
KIMT-DT MG Broadcasting, LLC Mason City IA
KITV-DT Hearst-Argyle Stations, Inc. Honolulu HI
KJTV-DT Ramar Communications II, Ltd. Lubbock TX
KLEI-DT Aina’e Co., Ltd. Kailua-Kona HI
KLEW-DT
Fisher Broadcasting – Washington TV,
LLC Lewiston ID
KLUZ-DT Entravision Holdings, LLC Albuquerque NM
KMCT-DT Louisiana Christian Broadcasting, Inc. West Monroe LA
KMVT-DT Neuhoff Family Limited Partnership Twin Falls ID
KMYQ-DT Tribute Television Holdings, Inc. Seattle WA
KNBC-DT NBC Telemundo License Co. Los Angeles CA
KREN-DT Reno License, LLC Reno NV
KREX-DT Hoak Media of Colorado, LLC Grand Junction CO
KRWG-DT Regents of New Mexico State University Las Cruces NM
KSBI-DT Family Broadcasting Group, Inc. Oklahoma City OK
KSBY-DT KSBY Communications, Inc.
San Luis
Obispo CA
KSCE-DT Christian Television El Paso TX
KSMS-DT Entravision Holdings, LLC Monterey CA
KSNB-DT Colins Broadcasting Company Superior NE
KSPR-DT Piedmont Television Holdings, LLC Springfield MO
KSYS-DT Southern Oregon Public TV Medford OR
KTAL-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Texarkana TX
KTGF-DT Destiny Licenses, LLC Great Falls MT
KTLM-DT Sunbelt Multimedia Co.
Rio Grande
City TX
KTUZ-DT Oklahoma Land Company Shawnee OK
KTVE-DT
Piedmont Television of Monroe/Ed
Dorado License, LLC El Dorado AR
KTVA-DT Alaska Broadcasting Company, Inc. Anchorage AK
KULR-DT MMM License II, LLC Billings MT
KVCR-DT
San Bernardino Community College
District San Bernardino CA
KVCW-DT Channel 33, Inc. Las Vegas NV
KVMY-DT KUPN Licensee, LLC Las Vegas NV
KVOA-DT KVOA Communications, Inc. Tucson AZ
KVYE-DT Entravision Holdings, LLC El Centro CA
KWBF-DT River City Broadcasting, Inc. Little Rock AR
KWES-DT Midessa Television, LP Odessa TX
KWGN-DT KWGN, Inc. Denver CO
KWYB-DT MMM License, LLC Butte MT
KYTX-DT MMT License, LLC Nacogdoches TX
WAWD-DT Beach TV Properties, LLC
Fort Walton
Beach FL
WAZE-DT
South Central Communications
Corporation Madisonville KY
WDBD-DT Jackson Television, LLC Jackson MS
WCIA-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Champaign IL
WDCA-DT Fox Television Stations, Inc. Washington DC
WEUX-DT Grant Media, LLC Chippewa Falls WI
WFGX-DT WFGX Licensee, LLC
Fort Walton
Beach FL
WFXI-DT
Piedmont Television Eastern Carolina
License, LLC Morehead City NC
WGBC-DT Robert M. Ledbetter Enterprises, LLC Meridian MS
WGGN-DT Christian Faith Broadcast, Inc. Sandusky OH
WGSA-DT Southern TV Corporation Baxley GA
WGXA-DT
Piedmont Television of Macon License,
LLC Macon GA
WIDP-DT Ebenezer Broadcasting Group, Inc. Guayama PR
WISE-DT WISE-TV License, LLC Fort Wayne IN
WKBN-DT
Piedmont Television of Youngstown
License, LLC Youngstown OH
WKTC-DT WBHQ Columbia, LLC Columbia SC
WLAE-DT Educational Broadcasting Foundation, Inc. New Orleans LA
WLAX-DT Grant Media, LLC LaCrosse WI
WLOV-DT Lingard Broadcasting Corporation West Point MS
WMPN-DT
Mississippi Authority for Educational
Television Jackson MS
WMGT-DT Morris Network, Inc. Macon GA
WMYA-DT Anderson (WFBC-TV) Licensee, Inc. Anderson SC
WNKY-DT MMK License, LLC Bowling Green KY
WNYW-DT Fox Television Stations, Inc. New York NY
WPTZ-DT Hearst-Argyle Stations, Inc. North Pole NY
WQLN-DT
Public Broadcasting of Northwest
Pennsylvania, Inc. Erie PA
WSFX-DT Southeastern Media Holdings, LLC Wilmington NC
WSST-DT Sunbelt South Tele-Communications. Ltd. Cordele GA
WSTR-DT WSTR Licensee, Inc. Cincinnati OH
WTVH-DT WTVH License, Inc. Syracuse NY
WTVW-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Evansville IN
WUTB-DT Fox Television Stations, Inc. Baltimore MD
WUTV-DT WUTV Licensee, LLC Buffalo NY
WVEN-DT Entravision Holdings, LLC Daytona Beach FL
WVFX-DT Davis Television Clarksburg, LLC Clarksburg
WV
WVOZ-DT International Broadcasting Corporation Ponce PR
WVSN-DT La Cadena Del Milagro, Inc. Humacao PR
WVTA-DT Vermont ETV, Inc. Windsor VT
WXXV-DT Morris Network of Mississippi, Inc. Gulfport MS

Stations Granted “Use or Lose” Waivers Until 30 Days After the Effective Date of the
Amendments to Section 73.624(d) Adopted in Report and Order in the Third DTV Periodic Review Proceeding - These stations only have 30 days after the effective date of the 3rd DTV Review the FCC stated last month to get built the permits these grant or loose post transition full coverage protection
Call Sign Licensee City ST
KAQY-DT Monroe Broadcasting, Inc. Columbia LA
KGNS-DT Sagamore Hill Broadcasting of Texas, LLC Laredo TX
KIXE-DT
Northern California Educational
Television Association Redding CA
KMLM-DT Prime Time Christian Broadcasting, Inc. Odessa TX
KNAZ-DT Multimedia Holdings Corporation Flagstaff AZ
KNWS-DT Johnson Broadcasting, Inc. Katy TX
KRPV-DT Prime Time Christian Broadcasting, Inc. Roswell NM
KTVH-DT Beartooth Communications Company Helena MT
KUNO-DT Concord License, LLC Ft. Bragg CA
KVAL-DT Fisher Broadcasting – Oregon TV, LLC Eugene OR
KYES-DT Fireweed Communications Corp. Anchorage AK
KYOU-DT Ottumwa Media Holdings, LLC Ottumwa IA
KZTV-DT
Eagle Creek Broadcasting of Corpus
Christi, LLC Corpus Christi TX
WBIQ-DT
Alabama Educational Television
Commission Birmingham AL
WCTE-DT Upper Cumberland Broadcast Council Cookeville TN
WGGB-DT WGGB Licensee, LLC Springfield MA
WGTU-DT MTC License, LLC Traverse City MI
WHAG-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Hagerstown MD
WHDT-DT Guenter Marksteiner Stuart FL
WHNS-DT Meredith Corporation Greenville SC
WHO-DT New York Times Management Services Des Moines IA
WHOI-DT
Barrington Broadcasting Peoria
Corporation Peoria IL
WJCL-DT Piedmont Television Holdings, LLC Savannah GA
WLFL-DT WLFL Licensee, LLC Raleigh NC
WMDN-DT WMDN, Inc. Meridian MS
WNCF-DT Channel 32 Montgomery, LLC Montgomery AL
WNET-DT Educational Broadcasting Corporation Newark NJ
WNOL-DT Tribune Television New Orleans, Inc. New Orleans LA
WOAY-DT Thomas Broadcasting Co. Oak Hill WV
WPIX-DT WPIX, Inc. New York NY
WPXN-DT
Paxson Communications License
Company, LLC New York NY
WSWP-DT
West Virginia Educational Broadcasting
Authority Grandview WV
WTGS-DT Bluenose Broadcasting of Savannah, LLC Hardeeville SC
WTOV-DT WTOV, Inc. Steubenville OH
WTTA-DT Tribute Broadcast Holdings, LLC St. Petersburg FL
WTVG-DT WTVG, Inc. Toledo OH
WTVZ-DT WTVZ Licensee, LLC Norfolk VA
WWTV-DT
Heritage Broadcasting Company of
Michigan Cadillac MI

Stations Granted “Use or Lose” Waivers Until February 17, 2009 - These stations have reasons beyond their control (such as 9/11 for WNBC, Katrina for the New Orleans stations and other specific causes on a station per station basis) to get full power replication built and the FCC is allowing them to build their post transition setups and have it ready to go on line by Feb 17, 2009
Call Sign Licensee City ST
KABC-DT ABC Holding Company, Inc. Los Angeles LA
KCRA-DT Hearst-Argyle Stations, Inc. Sacramento CA
KEYT-DT Smith Media License Holdings, LLC Santa Barbara CA
KFVE-DT KHNL/KFVE License Subsidiary, LLC Honolulu HI
KHAS-DT Hoak Media of Nebraska License, LLC Hastings NE
KIMO-DT Smith Media License Holdings, LLC Anchorage AK
KJRH-DT Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company Tulsa OK
KMTV-DT Emmis Television License, LLC Omaha NE
KNDO-DT KHQ, Incorporated Yakima WA
KNOP-DT Hoak Media of Nebraska License, LLC North Platte NE
KOCO-DT
Ohio/Oklahoma Hearst-Argyle Television,
Inc. Oklahoma OK
KOTV-DT Griffin Licensing, LLC Tulsa OK
KPBT-DT
Permian Basin Public
Telecommunications, Inc. Odessa TX
KPXO-DT Paxson Hawaii License, Inc. Kaneohe HI
KRTV-DT KRTV Communications, Inc. Great Falls MT
KTRK-DT KTRK Television, Inc. Houston TX
KTVM-DT BlueStone License Holdings, Inc. Butte MT
KWSU-DT Washington State University Pullman WA
KXLF-DT KXLF Communications, Inc. Butte MT
WAPT-DT WAPT Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. Jackson MS
WBKI-DT Louisville Communications, LLC Campbellsville KY
WBOY-DT West Virginia Media Holdings, LLC Clarksburg
WV
WCPO-DT Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company Cincinnati OH
WDRB-DT Independence Television Company Louisville KY
WDSU-DT
New Orleans Hearst-Argyle Television,
Inc. New Orleans LA
WEWS-DT Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company Cleveland OH
WFTE-DT Independence Television Company Salem IN
WFTS-DT Tampa Bay Television, Inc. Tampa Bay FL
WHBQ-DT Fox Television Stations, Inc. Memphis TN
WHRO-DT
Hampton Roads Educational
Telecommunications Association, Inc.
Hampton-
Norfolk VA
WITF-DT WITF, Inc. Harrisburg PA
WJAR-DT NBC Telemundo License Co. Providence RI
WJRT-DT Flint License Subsidiary Corp. Flint MI
WMAR-DT Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company Baltimore MD
WOLE-DT
Western Broadcasting Corp. of Puerto
Rico, Inc. Aguadilla PR
WPBF-DT WPBF-TV Company Tequesta FL
WSAZ-DT Emmis Television License, LLC Huntington
WV
WSBT-DT WSBT, Inc. South Bend IN
WSIL-DT WSIL-TV, Inc. Harrisburg IL
WSJV-DT WSJV Television, Inc. Elkhart IN
WTRF-DT West Virginia Media Holdings, LLC Wheeling
WV
WTJR-DT Christian Television Network, Inc. Quincy IL
WTTV-DT Tribune Broadcast Holdings, Inc. Bloomington IN
WVTM-DT NBC Telemundo License Co. Birmingham AL
WXYZ-DT Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc. Detroit MI

Stations Denied “Use or Lose” Waivers - These stations are up the creek without a paddle - Game over for these stations. They loose full power coverage post transition protection.
Call Sign Licensee City St
KAME-DT Ellis Communications, Inc. Reno NV
KBDI-DT Colorado Public Television
Denver-
Broomfield CO
KUAM-DT Pacific Telestations, Inc. Agana GU
WCOV-DT Woods Communications Corporation Montgomery AL
WDHS-DT W. Russell Withers, Jr. Iron Mountain MI
WDTV-DT
Withers Broadcasting Company of West
Virginia Weston
WV
WTXX-DT WTXX, Inc. Waterbury CT

Stations Granted Six-Month “Checklist” Waivers - These stations have six months to complete construction of the station, as outlined in the original FCC posting of stations and channels and they have to serve 100% of their analog audience in digital coverage
Call Sign Licensee City ST
WBNX-TV Winston Broadcasting Network, Inc. Akron OH
WEIU-DT Eastern Illinois University Charleston IL
WPCW-DT Viacom Stations Group of Pittsburgh, Inc. Jeannette PA
WSMH-DT WSMH Licensee, LLC Flint MI

Stations Granted “Checklist” Waivers Until 30 Days After the Effective Date of the
Amendments to Section 73.624(d) Adopted in Report and Order in the Third DTV Periodic Review Proceeding - These stations have 30 days from the effective date of the 3rd DTV Review to complete construction of the station, as outlined in the original FCC posting of stations and channels and they have to serve 100% of their analog audience in digital coverage
Call Sign Licensee City ST
KAJB-DT Calipatria Broadcasting Company, LLC Calipatria CA
KGTF-DT
Guam Educational Telecommunications
Corp. Agana GU
KVTV-DT Eagle Creek Broadcasting of Laredo, LLC Laredo TX
WEDH-DT Connecticut Public Broadcasting, Inc. Hartford CT
WPME-DT HMW, Inc. Lewiston ME
WRUA-DT Eastern Television Corporation Fajardo PR

“Use or Lose” Waivers Dismissed - for various reasons, many on financial hardship or other causes, these stations have case by case rulings to do certain things to comply. Remember that the stations pleading financial hardship had to provide financial records of the past three years to prove their case and provide what they planned on doing to make the transition. Some will go dark, but I suspect that number will be less than 20 nationwide. Several have already stated they will cease broadcasting all together on Feb 17, 2009. Just saying "we can't afford it" wasn't good enough for this waiver.
Call Sign Licensee City ST
KAEF-DT BlueStone License Holdings, Inc. Arcata CA
KAMC-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Lubbock TX
KAMR-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Amarillo TX
KARD-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Monroe LA
KATC-DT KATC Communications, Inc. Lafayette LA
KBTV-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Beaumont TX
KCAU-DT Citadel Communications Co., Ltd. Sioux City IA
KCIT-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Amarillo TX
KCNC-DT CBS Television Stations, Inc. Denver CO
KEET-DT Redwood Empire Public Television, Inc. Eureka CA
KFDX-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Witchita Falls KS
KFNB-DT Wyomedia Corporation Casper WY
KGWC-DT Mark III Media, Inc. Casper WY
KHMT-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Billings MT
KJTL-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Witchita Falls KS
KLBK-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Lubbock TX
KLDO-DT Entravision Holdings, LLC Laredo TX
KLST-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. San Angelo TX
KLTJ-DT
Community Television Educators of
Texas, Inc. Galveston TX
KLWY-DT Wyomedia Corporation Casper WY
KMCC-DT Cranston II, LLC Laughlin NV
KMID-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Midland TX
KMGH-DT McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc. Denver CO
KNLC-DT New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. St. Louis MO
KODE-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Joplin MO
KQTV-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. St. Joseph MO
KRBC-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Abilene TX
KRMA-DT
Rocky Mountain Public Broadcasting
Network, Inc. Denver CO
KRCB-DT Rural California Broadcasting Corporation Cotati CA
KSAN-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. San Angelo TX
KSBN-DT
Total Life Community Education
Foundation Springdale AR
KSMQ-DT Southern Minnesota Quality Broadcasting Austin MN
KSNF-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Joplin MO
KSVI-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Billings MT
KTAB-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Abilene TX
KTDO-DT ZGS El Paso Television, LP Las Cruces NM
KTRG-DT Ortiz Broadcasting Corporation Del Rio TX
KTTW-DT Independent Communications, Inc. Sioux Falls SD
KTVD-DT Multimedia Holdings Corporation Denver CO
KTWO-DT Silverton Broadcasting, LLC Casper WY
KUSA-DT Multimedia Holdings Corporation Denver CO
KVHP-DT National Communications, LLC Lake Charles LA
KVLY-DT
North Dakota Television License Sub,
LLC Fargo ND
KVOS-DT Ackerley Broadcasting Operations, LLC Bellingham WA
KVRR-DT Red River Broadcast Co., LLC Fargo ND
KVTN-DT Agape Church, Inc. Pine Bluff AR
KXGN-DT Glendive Broadcasting Corporation Glendive MT
WABC-DT American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. New York NY
WAOE-DT Four Seasons Peoria, LLC Peoria IL
WBKB-DT Thunder Bay Broadcasting Corporation Alpena MI
WCFN-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Springfield IL
WDHN-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Dothan AL
WDTI-DT Indianapolis Community Television, Inc. Indianapolis IN
WECN-DT Encuentro Christina Network Corp. Naranjito PR
WFFF-DT Smith Media Holdings, LLC Burlington VT
WFFT-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Fort Wayne IN
WFXB-DT GE Media, Inc. Myrtle Beach SC
WFXI-DT
Piedmont Television of Eastern Carolina
License, LLC Morehead City NC
WFXP-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Erie PA
WFXV-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Utica NY
WFXW-DT Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Terre Haute IN
WGGS-DT Carolina Christian Broadcasting, Inc. Greenville SC
WHTV-DT Spartan-TV, LLC Jackson MI
WHUT-DT Howard University Washington DC
WICU-DT
SJL of Pennsylvania License Subsidiary,
LLC Erie PA
WIPR-DT
Puerto Rico Public Broadcasting
Corporation San Juan PR
WJET-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Erie PA
WJZY-DT WJZY-TV, Inc. Belmont NC
WLFG-DT Living Faith Ministries, Inc. Grundy WV
WMYT-DT WMYT-TV, Inc. Rock Hill SC
WNBC-DT NBC Telemundo License Co. New York NY
WNJU-DT NBC Telemundo License Co. Linden NY
WNMU-DT
Board of Trustees of Northern Michigan
University Marquette MI
WNYE-DT
Department of Information Technology
and Telecommunications of the City of
New York New York NY
WORA-DT Telecinco, Inc. Mayaguez PR
WPAN-DT Franklin Media, Inc. Fort Walton Beach FL
WQRF-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Rockford IL
WRFB-DT RyF Broadcasting, Inc. Carolina PR
WRUA-DT Eastern Television Corporation Fajardo PR
WSJU-DT Aerco Broadcasting Corporation San Juan PR
WSTE-DT Siete Grande Television, Inc. Ponce PR
WTSF-DT Tri State Family Broadcasting, Inc. Ashland KY
WTIC-DT Tribune Television Company Hartford CT
WTVA-DT WTVA, Inc. Tupelo MS
WTVE-DT
Reading Broadcasting, Inc., Debtor-in-
Possession Reading PA
WTWO-DT Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Terre Haute IN
WVEO-DT International Broadcasting Corporation Aguadilla PR
WVIZ-DT Ideastream Cleveland OH
WVPX-DT Paxson Akron License, Inc. Akron OH
WYDC-DT WYDC, Inc. Corning NY

Stations with Modification Applications - These stations either have pending applications or have been issued permits since the list was compiled and published
KAKW-DT, Killeen, Texas66
KATV-DT, Little Rock, Arkansas67
KBJR-DT, Superior, Wisconsin68
KBSV-DT, Ceres, California69
KCWC-DT, Lander, Wyoming70
KDLH-DT, Duluth, Minnesota71
KENS-DT, San Antonio, Texas72
KFBB-DT, Great Falls, Montana73
KFTR-DT, Ontario, California74
KFYR-DT, Bismarck, North Dakota75
KIMA-DT, Yakima, Washington76
KIMT-DT, Mason City, Iowa77
KLEI-DT, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii78
KLUZ-DT, Alburquerque, New Mexico79
KMCT-DT, West Monroe, Louisiana80
KLMN-DT, Odessa, Texas
KMYQ-DT, Seattle, Washington82
KNBC-DT, Los Angeles, California83
KSCE-DT, El Paso, Texas84
KTUZ-DT, Shawnee, Oklahoma85
KULR-DT, Billings, Montana86
KVCR-DT, San Bernardino, California87
KVCW-DT, Las Vegas, Nevada88
KVMY-DT, Las Vegas, Nevada89
KVOA-DT, Tuscon, Arizona90
WAZE-DT, Madisonville, Kentucky91
WDCA-DT, Washington, District of Columbia92
WMGT-DT, Macon, Georgia93
WMYA-DT, Anderson, South Carolina94
WTVH-DT, Syracuse, New York95
WUTV-DT, Buffalo, New York96
WPCW-DT, Jeannette, Pennsylvania97
WQLN-DT, Eric, Pennsylvania98
WSFX-DT, Wilmington, North Carolina99
WSTR-DT, Cincinnati, Ohio100
WUTB-DT, Baltimore, Maryland101
WVEN-DT, Daytona Beach, Florida102
WVOZ-DT, Ponce, Puerto Rico103
WVSN-DT, Humacao, Puerto Rico104
WVTA-DT, Windsor, Vermont105

Bottom line is the waiver line has ended. No more waivers. Built it or loose it. Some stations waited too long to do anything and they now have to live with whatever digital coverage they have (if any). If they want to increase power (or put on a station) pre or post transition, they now have to apply for it like anyone else as if they never had post transition coverage protection and there is no guaruntees they will get it back. The Grim Reaper made his appearance. Next stop, Feb 17, 2009.

sebenste

05-20-07, 12:05 AM

Those stations not on the air digitally after 3am local Feb 17, 2009 WILL NOT HAVE A LICENSE to broadcast PERIOD.

This proceeding handled just waiver applications for the July 1, 2005/6 full power deadline and how to handle them pre-transition. The FCC has been on this replication of service kick from the beginning so if a station wanted to maintain the same post transition coverage, they had to build out pre-transition to at least their analog coverage (or 80% of their digital coverage) to maintain it post transition. That is what has driven every extension review. Those stations who can't replicate due to technical issues and plan on moving to either their analog or a third channel, it would be silly to spend the money to build something that doesn't meet the FCC's requirement, be penalized for it and then spend the money all over again to meet the FCC's requirement post transition.

Bottom line is the waiver line has ended. No more waivers. Built it or loose it. Some stations waited too long to do anything and they now have to live with whatever digital coverage they have (if any). If they want to increase power (or put on a station) pre or post transition, they now have to apply for it like anyone else as if they never had post transition coverage protection and there is no guaruntees they will get it back. The Grim Reaper made his appearance. Next stop, Feb 17, 2009.

Fox,

GREAT post. There is one thing I noticed, however: after the third channel election process and up until February, DTV stations who have VHF-LO channel (2-6) designations had the opportunity to go to VHF-HI or UHF stations, as well as those who couldn't maximize due to interference from other stations, or international border issues.. Those stations have NOT showed up on this list yet, as far as I can see. I hope the FCC gets those out soon.

foxeng

05-20-07, 05:33 AM

sebenste

05-20-07, 02:04 PM

Like I said, this proceeding only dealt with the July 2005/6 waiver deadlines, not channel election. That is a different proceeding. Stations still are required to have something on the air digitally now no matter what channel they ultimately wind up on if they want to maintain analog coverage post transition. The question is how much coverage will they be allowed to have post transition. That is the crux of this proceeding not what channel it is on.

Don't get confused between the FCC proceedings. They are tackling one issue at a time so from the outside it looks disjointed, but there is a central goal in the end. It is just being handled in a typical government fashion, SNAFUed.

Gotcha. It is good that they are doing this in order, but they do need to hurry up!
We both know you can't just crawl up a tower, put on a side-mount antenna or replace a top one in a few hours, come back down and throw a switch and that's the end of the transition. :)

Don't ya wish it were that easy (and cheap), though? :D

Nitewatchman

05-21-07, 05:19 PM

Haven't had the time to do much studying of the new DTV documents up on FCC site yet ..

But, from what I have read so far, I do hope they find a way to handle some of the stuff in efficient and timely manner regarding analog shut off and say, digital stations that will be moving to a different channel allocation(some their current analog channel allocation, some not), and/or will be moving the DTV transmitting antenna to top of tower/etc ---- As it may pertain to the folks who will need to prioritize things, such as say, for doing the scheduling for tower crews+the work that has to be done before Feb 2009 ....

Hope this isn't too OT for this thread(as I don't think this topic "needs" a thread to itself), but I do find paragraph 117+118 of the 3rd DTV review NPRM regarding A65/C PSIP interesting ... Particularly involving the comments about detailed EPG info in the PSIP EIT's versus what they said in paragraph 152 of 2nd DTV Report and order ....

In the quotes below, I have bolded the items I find particularly "interesting" regarding this matter .....

118. Since Section 73.682(d) was revised in the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, ATSC has updated the ATSC PSIP standard; the current version is A/65-C. This new revision further enhances the PSIP standard and support for delivery of data. The updated ATSC PSIP standard now requires broadcasters to populate the Event Information Tables (“EITs”) with accurate information about each event and to update the EIT if more accurate information becomes available. Currently, under version A/65-B, many broadcasters provide only general information in the EIT tables. For example, a network affiliate may provide “network programming” as the descriptor for the majority of its program offerings. We propose to update Section 73.682(d) to reflect these revisions to the ATSC PSIP standard since the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order. We seek comment on this proposal. In particular, we request input regarding the burden that compliance with A/65-C would place on broadcasters – especially small broadcasters.

119. We also seek comment from broadcasters and others as to the need to include more accurate, detailed, and up-to-date information about each event under this new PSIP standard. We also seek comment about whether PSIP information is being passed through to cable and satellite subscribers. If satellite carriers are not passing through PSIP information, is the information otherwise being reflected adequately in the electronic program guide and signal they provide to subscribers?

And, here's some of what it says from 2nd DTV review, portion of paragraph #152 :

152. We conclude that adoption of ATSC A/65B (PSIP) into our broadcast transmission standards will serve the public interest. As pointed out by commenters, during the development of PSIP, the ATSC carefully considered which elements of PSIP should be mandatory and which should be optional. Further, based its experience with the deployment of over 180 PSIP systems, Harris states that it is not aware of any difficulties that are experienced by either the broadcaster or the viewing consumer if the ATSC A/65B PSIP standard is properly implemented. We find the cost to broadcasters of implementing PSIP will be minor in comparison to the overall costs of converting to DTV and will provide many options to expand on the investments they have made to convert to DTV. We therefore require that broadcasters fully implement PSIP to the extent that ATSC A/65B requires. In order to give broadcasters adequate time to come into compliance, this requirement shall take effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register. We expect broadcasters to populate the required tables and descriptors with the proper information to help receivers assemble functioning guides. All tables and descriptors that require one time setup should be set correctly, including TSID, Short Channel Name, Service Type, Modulation Mode, Source ID, and Service Location Descriptor. ATSC A/65B also requires that broadcasters send populated EITs covering at least a 12 hour period. These EITs should be populated with the correct information, so that the user knows what programs are on for this 12 hour period. Also, we expect that manufacturers will have every incentive to build equipment that looks to PSIP for its basic functionality, but we will revisit the issue if necessary. Standardized use of the data transmitted through PSIP will ensure that the full benefits and innovations of the new digital system will be available to the public.

Having read that from 2nd DTV review, previously --- I had thought that broadcasters were already required to populate the EIT's with info out 12 hours that is significantly detailed so that "the user knows what programs are on for this 12 hour period." ....... I personally don't think incorrect, no programming info whatsoever or "networking programming" that I often see in the EIT's from many stations quite meets that current requirement, or at least the way I read it ...

HOWEVER, OTOH, I personally don't think it's necessarily quite right for broadcasters to be required to provide the detailed EPG info if users equipment doesn't support it ....As for instance, at least from what I've seen so far, there is quite a bit of consumer equipment out there that doesn't display any EPG info via the PSIP EIT's, and even less of it that does in a way that allows you to see a "guide" that goes out 12 hours ....

If broadcasters are, or are going to be required to provide detailed EPG info via PSIP, it seems to me the receivers should be required to implement it as well .... Including, say, ATSC receivers which are included with DBS receivers - at least in any such cases that may exist, if say the subscriber is "required" to subscribe to say, LiL in order to get the EPG info from the sat provider, shouldn't they also have the option to Not sub to LiL and be able/allowed to receive the EPG info via PSIP EIT's(albeit only out 12 hours currently) OTA ,rather than being "forced" to sub to LiL to get any EPG info from the sat provider?

Nitewatchman

05-22-07, 05:49 PM

Given this is upcoming DTV table of allotments thread .....

Update to below : - Oops! Don't know how I missed it before .... Just noticed The 7th Futher notice of proposed rulemaking including current proposed post-transistion table of allotments described farther below is in fact avaialable for much easier downloading(and with much more "Readable" text) than described below via the links for the documents with 10/20/06 date at :

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/

But, you won't find the later comments submitted to FCC regarding the matter such as affigatt mentions in later post ....

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

After reading a bit more of 3rd DTV review NPRM, I realized FCC's current "proposed" Post-transistion DTV table of allotments was proposed in "7th further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" (7thNPRM), MB Docket No. 87-268. The proposal was adopted by FCC on 10/10/2006.

I don't know if it is available anywhere else yet at this point+assume it will be once the new DTV table is finalized, and I expect most will be happy to wait until that happens regarding any possible changes from the current proposed table ---- which I'd personally think will probably be fairly soon --- for instance, it appears the New DTV table certianly will be added to the rules in CFR 47 part 73.622 at some point ---

But, for anyone interested(who hasn't already found it) in seeing it or some of the comments submitted by interested parties to FCC regarding the proposed post-transistion DTV table, I found the text of the 7thNPRM regarding this matter including the proposed DTV table of allotments via the ECFS (Electronic Comment Filing System) search page by doing the following :

A). Going to FCC ECFS search page (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi) and typing in "87-268" for "#1.) Proceeding",

B). Finding one of the entries from 10/10/06 posted from FCC and classifed as "NPRM" (107 pages) - Note, there are two entries, but I think the 5 "view" links under each entry are the same files for each "entry", and you could the 5 links for either entry+get the same info. --

Note: 100 "entries" or "records" are shown on each page, currently(5/22/07) the 7thNPRM+Proposed DTV table can be found on the third page (which has Record # 201~300) ... It will of course get pushed back "farther" as more comments/entries/etc. for this proceeding are added .... As you can see, this proceeding(In the matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service")has over 3500 records so far, dating back to 1987 .....

C.) Right clicking on each of the "view" links for the entry described in "B" above, and choosing "save file as" in my browser then assigning my own "understandable" file name for each PDF file+saving to disk ... Note: The file sizes range from 328KB to 1.5MB, Most of the text in the NPRM is in the file at the top "left" view link, with the remainder having appendix B, the Table listing by state(with ERP listed/etc), as well as a "simpler" listing of the DTV allocations by state/community. Note #2: You should also be able to click on the View link+if installed on your system, Acrobat reader should open the file for viewing if you don't want to save it to disk and just want to view it ...

afiggatt

05-22-07, 06:38 PM

A). Going to FCC ECFS search page (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi) and typing in "87-268" for "#1.) Proceeding",

B). Finding one of the entries from 10/10/06 posted from FCC and classifed as "NPRM" (107 pages) - Note, there are two entries, but I think the 5 "view" links under each entry are the same files for each "entry", and you could the 5 links for either entry+get the same info. --
Good find. There are a huge number of documents there. I skimmed the list looking for major corporations.

Random spot checking turned up this one concerning WPVI-DT ABC 6 in Philly (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518723091). Looks like WPVI-DT will be going with VHF 6 as their permanent DTV channel.

There is this document from CBS on WBBM-DT 2 in Chicago (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518723075). So they want WBBM-DT to switch to VHF 12 rather than VHF 11 for better coverage? Does not affect post transition antenna selection in the Chicago area, but would the FCC accept this change at this late date?

Nitewatchman

05-22-07, 07:06 PM

There are a huge number of documents there. I skimmed the list looking for major corporations.

Yeah ... You could spend a long time looking through these things, especially say this entire proceeding as a whole, or say if you look into other proceedings such as the one on BPL ....

In this case, regarding the proposed DTV table It's certianly nice when station callsign of particular interest shows up in the "filed on behalf of"/etc line ... One that I had looked at regarding a station in my area was only about a very minor correction some info regarding antenna pattern.

I think It is also one interesting "window" into how FCC works. Especially if you read through some of the comments and follow things through to the R&O involved, and especially if it's an issue your interested in (your comments/questions regarding the CBS submission concerning WBBM-DT for instance)... And it's no wonder, given all the stuff on their plate how long it can seem at times for them to get to the R&O stage ...

In the past when looking at these things for other proceedings, I've just generally "clicked on"+looked at the info I've guessed might have the most interesting or relevant comments ... Then again, sometimes it's also interesting at times to see the comments submitted by individuals as well .... Some of those, how shall I say it .... can be quite humorous, others can be quite "on the mark" and detailed ...

Nitewatchman

05-22-07, 08:34 PM

There is this document from CBS on WBBM-DT 2 in Chicago (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518723075). So they want WBNM-DT to switch to VHF 12 rather than VHF 11 for better coverage? Does not affect post transition antenna selection in the Chicago area, but would the FCC accept this change at this late date?

Good catch! Had to look up some of the details on that before commenting .....

I wouldn't want to comment on whether or not they are going to actually allow/implement the change in the table ... But, I will say in regards to the details I am aware of(and I'm likely not aware of everything of interest) --- as it applies to their particular case+regarding paragraph 25 of the FNPRM on this matter(as they mention in that document) :

I think in this particular case, as it seems to be allowed for them regarding the specifics spelled out in that paragraph # 25 --- It seems to me they certianly are "allowed" to make their case on it to the point that perhaps FCC will/should consider it to some degree .... Which, BTW, "generally" speaking seems to me(again albeit coming from a perspective of someone who probably doesn't have all the facts) to be a good/viable case, if, in case they are any such "issues" of interest --- they can work out any interference issues I may not be "fully" aware of ... But, that's just my opinion at this point more than anything else ...

I made a particular note regarding possibility of "interference issues" concerning WBBM on 12, above, because as it turns out currently there's are at least a couple more entertaining "chapters" to this story regarding CBS proposal to move WBBM-DT to 12 you might want to read here :

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518908204

And here :

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518912330

sebenste

05-22-07, 10:03 PM

Jeff and Afiggett,

Nice job finding those! posted the news on the Chicago OTA board, giving you full credit for your finds. That's excellent! WBBM and WREX will go from the worst signals in their markets, to possibly and quite arguably the best. I really hope that BOTH go through. Come on, FCC, do the right thing and approve both these apps...with a slight mod to WREX-DT's transmit pattern so they don't interfere
with WBBM.

Whoo hoo! I can't believe I'm reading this! I wouldn't have to put up a monster antenna to get them. That would be nice...

Nitewatchman

05-22-07, 11:42 PM

^ Having followed the situation a bit regarding WBBM digital over the years .... I understand why you want to be optimistic about it, and no offense meant ----

But dude, be careful!

I don't think we have any evidence whatsoever at this point the CBS proposal for WBBM-DT on 12 might be approved ... It's just a proposal, these things are submitted all the time, and certianly the commenters involved are often very biased about what is best for them and their interests ....

This is *very* complicated issue for them, and I think we want to be very careful that we don't spread any misinformation about it ....

It might not fly at all, and for instance, in addition to reading those comments from EFCS, I'd also encourage those interested to carefully read paragraphs 25 Through 27 of 7th FNPRM for proceeding 87-268 as it may apply to this matter ...

Also, regarding your comments about WREX and some of your comments In Chicago thread ... Don't forget about WINM-DT 12 Angola, IN .... It's not all that far from chicago .... or that interference from any proposed WBBM-DT facility to those stations is just as much of a concern as interference TO WBBM facility ....

Actually, given the circumstances, perhaps especially so regarding the "burden of proof" on WBBM to show FCC that their proposal for 12 will work out --- MORE of a potential concern regarding the facilities as already specified for those stations in the current proposed DTV table, as for one thing they're already "tentatively authorized" for those ..... And, in case interference issue is a problem here, I think it would be WBBM proposed facilities that would have to prevent interference to those already "tentatively approved" facilities for those stations, not the other way around ...

Right now, one can certianly "hope", but personally I think I'd probably "plan" on them being on 11 post-transistion with the 1.8KW ERP facilities specified for them in the current proposed post-transistion DTV table ... You know, plan for the worst, Hope for the best :)

Trip in VA

05-23-07, 12:12 AM

I'm picking through this data right now. Some stations did apply to move off their VHFs, including:

KCWX-2, TCD was 5, wants 8.
KJNP-4/20, TCD was 4, wants 20.
WOAY-4/50, TCD was 4, wants 50.

I'm about to go to bed and finish picking through this tomorrow, but there are more where those came from. I have a list of a number of allocation changes that I'll post up TOMORROW.

- Trip

dlnester

05-23-07, 02:13 AM

In reference to foxeng's post:

Wichita Falls is in Texas, not Kansas :-)

foxeng

05-23-07, 06:45 AM

Trip in VA

05-23-07, 06:55 AM

Alright, here's everything from that data that's not either a minor correction or a request for a power boost:

KFJX-14 Pittsburg, KS wants 13 (with KOAM-DT's equipment)
KCWX-2 Fredericksburg, TX wants 8 (current TCD is 5)
New-29 Gainesville, FL wants 9 (claims interference on 29)
WTVF-5/56 Nashville, TN wants 22 kW instead of 4.28 kW on channel 5
New-18 Mobile, AL wants 23
WDCP-19/18 University Center, MI will go silent in 2009 since WDCQ-DT 15 covers both areas
A number of petitioners want the FCC to assign 26 (non-comm) to Tulsa, OK
A number of petitioners (including Pappas) want the FCC to assign 35 to Owensboro, KY
KJNP-4/20 North Pole, AK wants 20 instead of 4
KBDI-12/38 Boulder, CO wants 13 instead of 38 (for about the third time)
New-14 Memphis, TN wants 23
KTNL-13/2 Sitka, AK wants 7 instead of 2
WOAY-4/50 Oak Hill, WV wants 50 instead of 4
KETZ-12 El Dorado, AR wants 10
WDBD-40/41 Jackson, MS wants 40 instead of 41
KEVN-7/18 Rapid City, SD wants 7 instead of 18
WMYT-55/39 Rock Hill, SC/Charlotte, NC wants 46 instead of 39 (shortspaced to WKTC-DT, WHKY-DT)
KLCW-22 Wolfforth/Lubbock, TX wants 43 instead of 22
KAYU-28/30 Spokane, WA has had coordination issues with Canada, and if their interference resolution is denied, wants 30 instead of 28
KHAS-5/21 Hastings, NE wants 45 kW instead of 2.8 kW on channel 5
KNOP-2/22 North Platte, NE wants 16 kW instead of 3.51 kW on channel 2
WFUT-68/53 Newark, NJ wants 30 instead of 41 (claims they can't build full facilities on 41)
WPVI-6/64 Philadelphia, PA wants 4.8 kW instead of about 2.5 kW on channel 6
WTHR-13/46 Indianapolis, IN wants more power on 13, if FCC declines to grant it to them, they want 46 instead of 13
Wisconsin Public Television wants vacant 27 in Duluth reassigned to 47 to avoid potential interference with WHWC-DT 27
WSWP-9/53 Grandview, WV wants 20 kW instead of 2.5 kW on channel 10; WVFX-DT in Clarksburg objects

Those are all the interesting things I saw besides the WBBM thing. Others were corrections or requests for increased power.

The last thing I saw of interest was one document from an independent person who requests that the FCC move stations on 11, 19, and 50 in either Madison or Chicago. He proposes alternative frequencies. 11 may be a moot point, but his proposal is pretty interesting regardless. I'm curious as to whether the FCC will consider it.

- Trip

sebenste

05-23-07, 11:01 AM

^ Having followed the situation a bit regarding WBBM digital over the years .... I understand why you want to be optimistic about it, and no offense meant ----

But dude, be careful!

Right now, one can certianly "hope", but personally I think I'd probably "plan" on them being on 11 post-transistion with the 1.8KW ERP facilities specified for them in the current proposed post-transistion DTV table ... You know, plan for the worst, Hope for the best :)

Jeff,

No offense taken, and I understand. But, I can tell you this. The FCC wants everyone off of 2-6. And, they want everyone to have a great signal wherever possible. WBBM has met 3 of the 3 criteria to make this happen: They're currently on a VHF-LO signal, and their new station won't allow them to maximize...and in fact, they have *10%+* interference with another channel (WWTO-DT)! And, they have been helping the FCC with testing VHF-LO DTV signals...which we all know now is a flop. The FCC has explicitly stated that ANY of these three conditions will get you off of your channel to another one. Given the 3 factors above, and that channel 12 is essentially wide open with 0.1% interference vs. 10.3% interference, and that no one else is contesting the usage of the channel in the area, it would be inconsistent and insane for the FCC to do otherwise. Yes, it is possible the FCC could deny it, but I very, very seriously doubt it.

As for WREX going to 12 kw, that is doable, but less likely to happen until after 2009. They are not on a VHF-LO channel, they are allowed to maximize, and they certainly can broadcast at higher power. BUT, they also stayed at STA (low) power until they absolutely had to go to full. That is a negative in the FCC's eyes.
Now, I really DO hope they get it, but I am far less confident on their power increase happening.

Nitewatchman

05-23-07, 11:34 AM

Comments in this post deleted regarding a particular station in my area+their ERP allocation currently+in the current proposed post-Transistion DTV table after reading through more of 3rd DTV review NPRM realizing an "oppurtunity" for them to possibly maximize coverage area/signal should come at some later point in future ....

afiggatt

05-23-07, 06:29 PM

Alright, here's everything from that data that's not either a minor correction or a request for a power boost:
Boy, that must have taken a while! Good job in digging all those stations up.

Looking at the FCC proposed rulemaking document, I was struck by the discussion for the stations with side-mounted DTV antennas while the analog antenna is on top of the tower. The side-mount is not covering the full area of the NTSC signal, so they can't get full DTV coverage until they remove the analog antenna and put the DTV antenna on top. Some of the stations mention 80% to 85% coverage with their DTV signal. But the shutdown is scheduled for the middle of winter in February when it may be impossible to do major work on the tower, especially the more remote towers stuck up on a mountain, until summer. I'm not in the business, but I would guess that if the station & tower engineers and station managers had been asked to pick a global shutdown date, they would have picked a date in summer, July or early August, when they can work on the towers (and when TV viewership is down). But Congress in the interest of political compromise picked a date in the middle of winter and in the middle of a sweeps month as well, if I am not mistaken.

But if those stations turn off their analog transmitter in February, 2009, they may get stuck with a reduced DTV coverage until the summer of 2009. To quote the FCC document:
"To best achieve their respective transitions, however, some stations may find it desirable to reduce or terminate their analog operations before the February 17, 2009 transition date. In some cases, stations may need to reduce or end their analog service because such operations may impede construction and operation of post-transition (digital) facilities. Such circumstances may include, but are not limited to: (1) stations that would like to switch their side-mounted digital antenna with their topmounted analog antenna before the end of the transition; (2) stations that need to add a third antenna to their tower but cannot do so without reducing or ending analog service because the tower cannot support the additional weight; and (3) stations that are terminating analog service early as part of a voluntary band-clearing arrangement. We seek comment on these and other circumstances where stations can facilitate their transitions by reducing or terminating their analog service in advance of the transition deadline."

I think most people have been assuming that almost all the analog stations will stay on the air until February 17, 2009 and then, WHAM, they go dark. If the low cost converters actually do start to show up in early 2008, become widely available at the B&M stores by mid-2008, and people have several months to get one, then the critical need to maintain the analog signal starts to go away. So rather than one big shutdown day for almost all the full power stations, are we going to see a increasing trickle of analog shutdowns starting up in later 2008 before winter kicks in? The FCC is certainly opening the door to that. Comments anyone?

dline

05-23-07, 06:29 PM

That listing was a cut and paste directly from the FCC notice so if I listed it wrong, the FCC posted it wrong, which they have been noted for, especially getting cities in the wrong states when you have a North or South something.Yeah, gotta beware of that. On one chart a few years ago, I swear I saw a listing for a "WHO" in "Moline, Indiana." :o

foxeng

05-23-07, 06:47 PM

My favorate was in the status of DTV stations and the FCC listed the Sinclair ABC affiliate here as "SOUTH" Carolina instead of North Carolina. Now THAT was a doozy!

dline

05-23-07, 08:44 PM

A few other comments from the FCC database:

- KEVN, Rapid City, SD: Selected channel 18 for its post-transition DT rather than its analog channel 7, but due to pending bankruptcy proceedings the station is broadcasting at low power on 18 and has determined it can't fully build a full UHF DT operation. As Trip mentioned, it is seeking to change its election to 7.

- KOMU Columbia, MO: seeks to increase its post-transition ERP on channel 8 from 8.105 kW to 13 kW.

- WHDH, Boston, MA: seeks to increase its post-transition ERP on channel 7 from 16.8 kW to 30 kW and its antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) from 288 meters (960 ft.) to 305 meters (approx. 1016 ft.)

- WSVN, Miami, FL: seeks to increase its post-transition ERP on channel 7 from the 14.3 kW specified in the table to the 145 kW specified on the construction permit it was granted.

Trip in VA

05-23-07, 09:17 PM

NashDigie

05-24-07, 12:10 AM

So I suppose the question now is: Should I go through and find all the proposed power boosts and list those as well? There were a number of them and I just sorta skipped over them last night except for the low VHF ones.

- Trip

Where did you find this information? I would like to look at it. Thank you for the information you have posted.

NashDigie signing off.

sebenste

05-24-07, 10:16 AM

So I suppose the question now is: Should I go through and find all the proposed power boosts and list those as well? There were a number of them and I just sorta skipped over them last night except for the low VHF ones.

- Trip

That's what this thread is for, but I know I'd appreciate it if you could! Also, with your permission, I'd like to copy your post on what channels are going where
and put it at the top of the thread, as well as power increase requests if you do that, too.

Also, I'd like to know where you are getting this as well. Thanks!

dline

05-24-07, 12:22 PM

Nitewatchman posted this link:

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

That's the FCC ECFS search page. Type in "87-268" for "#1.) Proceeding."

This proceeding has been going on for years (officially, it's called "Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service"), but you mainly want the comments after 10-10-06, which is when the proposed final table of allotments was posted.

dline

05-24-07, 01:03 PM

Meanwhile, I've noticed another developing controversy involving a maritime communications company.

According to a document (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518717553) filed in early January, Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, is seeking relief from its duty to protect stations moving to channels 10 and 13 from its interference.

Under its current license, MC/LM must protect stations currently transmitting on those two channels. However, the company argues that it should not have to protect stations which the FCC plans to move to channel 10 and 13, if they weren't on those channels in analog mode.

"The Commission’s long standing policy with respect to interference between TV stations and land mobile systems has been 'first-in-time, first-in-right,'" the company argued, noting that it has been operating automated marine telecommunications systems (AMTS) for nearly 20 years and won the disputed frequencies at an auction which closed in 2005.

Public station WEDU of Tampa is one of the stations which would be affected. It broadcasts analog on channel 3 (which it does not want to use for digital), currently has an out-of-core digital channel, and plans to move to channel 13 post-transition.

In its response (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518908100), attorneys for WEDU wrote: "This is not a situation governed by some general proposition of 'first in-time, first-in-right', as suggested by MC/LM. Rather, there is a specific rule governing the relationship between AMTS stations and Channel 10 and 13 television stations, and it does not include the exclusion sought by MC/LM. Moreover, such an exclusion would not serve the public interest, and viewers of Station WEDU should not be subjected to adjacent-channel AMTS interference to its post-transition DTV broadcasts on Channel 13."

Also entering the fray was the Association for Maximum Service Television, which argued (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519110262) that AMTS coast stations have a "long established" secondary status to DTV.

"MC/LM, like the other AMTS licensees, knew when it applied for its license that the Commission had begun the transition to digital television, and it was well established that the Commission would make digital allotments on channels 10 and 13," attorneys for MSTV wrote. "Having applied for its license notwithstanding the ongoing transition, MC/LM cannot now ask the Commission to divest DTV stations of their right to interference protection. The Commission has already rejected such a policy, concluding that AMTS coast stations’ authorizations are secondary to all analog and digital television broadcasts."

Trip in VA

05-24-07, 02:52 PM

That's what this thread is for, but I know I'd appreciate it if you could! Also, with your permission, I'd like to copy your post on what channels are going where
and put it at the top of the thread, as well as power increase requests if you do that, too.

Also, I'd like to know where you are getting this as well. Thanks!

dline already answered where it came from, so I won't repeat him.

You most certainly may post it at the beginning of the thread, just mention that I gathered the data. =P

I'll see what I can do about power increase requests.

- Trip

jtbell

05-24-07, 06:41 PM

WMYT-55/39 Rock Hill, SC/Charlotte, NC wants 46 instead of 39 (shortspaced to WKTC-DT, WHKY-DT)

Ah, good! I hope that one gets approved. I'm roughly equidistant from WMYT and WKTC (Columbia SC) both of which now have channel 39. I get fairly decent reception on WMYT-DT, but nothing at all on WKTC-DT because they're still at very low power. I've been wondering if those two would knock each other out at my location when WKTC-DT finally goes to full power.

Charlotte's WJZY currently has 46 for analog and 47 for digital. It looks like WJZY and WMYT share the same tower so having them on adjacent channels would work OK.

Trip in VA

05-24-07, 08:24 PM

Ah, good! I hope that one gets approved. I'm roughly equidistant from WMYT and WKTC (Columbia SC) both of which now have channel 39. I get fairly decent reception on WMYT-DT, but nothing at all on WKTC-DT because they're still at very low power. I've been wondering if those two would knock each other out at my location when WKTC-DT finally goes to full power.

Charlotte's WJZY currently has 46 for analog and 47 for digital. It looks like WJZY and WMYT share the same tower so having them on adjacent channels would work OK.

Not only work okay, they might even be able to use the same antenna. This would save them money as well.

- Trip

Nitewatchman

05-24-07, 09:17 PM

Also would like to add my thanks to the others to Trip for digging through all that+posting a summary of the most interesting goings on.

Since it looks like the comment period for "DTV proceeding" 7th FNPRM has been over since Feb 27 (it was extended from Jan 25) -- even though, some later comments were filed as well : it seems to me we probably should be seeing a R&O on it + a finalized table from FCC soon .... At least I hope we'll be seeing it soon ..

Comments anyone?

I finished reading through the 3rd DTV review last night, so have more comments+thoughts at this point than anyone probably wants to see or read ;)

I'd generally probably like to wait until the R&O is out before commenting too much on it, but since you asked, it is fun to think about what's going to happen based on the NPRM as well ...

So rather than one big shutdown day for almost all the full power stations, are we going to see a increasing trickle of analog shutdowns starting up in later 2008 before winter kicks in?

I'm not postive but regarding the "voluntary band clearing" comment you quoted, I wonder if they may be more reffering more about circumstances involving out-of-core stations ?

Given the numbers of OTA folks who need to make the switch to digital in a relatively short period of time, I'd think, in-core analog stations especially would probably have to produce a lot of evidence that virtually noone is watching those to be allowed to shut down before feb 17, 2009 ....

Other than perhaps regarding some out-of-core stations, Seems to me the possibility of allowing reductions in analog service area prior to analog shut off is more likely in more cases, rather than complete termination of it. Such as say, allowing moving the analog antenna to side mounted posistion on tower+digital to the top -- Judging by what I read in the NPRM, probably generally along the lines of allowing around 5% or less reduction in analog coverage area without the station having to go to much trouble to make their case to FCC for it ...

Looking at the FCC proposed rulemaking document, I was struck by the discussion for the stations with side-mounted DTV antennas while the analog antenna is on top of the tower. The side-mount is not covering the full area of the NTSC signal, so they can't get full DTV coverage until they remove the analog antenna and put the DTV antenna on top.........

Yeah, me too .... That and several other things in that document "struck" me as well .... I'm thinking we might see a lot of comments submitted to FCC regarding that (3rd DTV review) proceeding... When the comment period begins, I'd think they should probably show up under a search for proceeding 07-91 at ECFS search page ....

I suppose what struck me the most after reading through the 3rd DTV review NPRM is that the gears seemed to have definitely changed now at the commission to looking at post-transistion DTV operation and stations being ready for it.

And, It seems to me from reading that, whereever possible they seem to want stations to have their post-transistion DTV facility per the current "proposed" new DTV table of allotments on the air on Feb 18, 2009. So as to, in many cases as possible serve their entire "service area" with DTV post transistion right off the bat ... It also looks like they are trying to look at as many options as possible for stations to bring that to fruitition ....

Trip in VA

05-24-07, 10:20 PM

My eyes! They hurt me!

Yes, I just went back through almost 200 applications and dug up the power increase requests. These are in no particular order.

Calls-Final City-of-License Details

KUHT-8 Houston, TX 8.4 kW > 20 kW
WCTI-12 New Bern, NC 20.5 kW > "more"
KOMU-8 Columbia, MO 8.105 kW > 13 kW
KTWU-11 Topeka, KS 281m 26 kW > 302m 21.5 kW
KKCO-12 Grand Junction, CO 10.8 kW > 5.3 kW (not a typo)
KUID-12 Moscow, ID 129 kW > 78 kW
WHDH-7 Boston, MA 16.8 kW > 30 kW
WSVN-7 Miami, MI 14.3 kW > 145 kW
WSWP-10 Grandview, WV 2.5 kW > 20 kW
WMYT-46 Rock Hill, NC 200 kW (channel 39) > 336.4 kW (channel 46)
WGAL-8 Lancaster, PA 393m 13.4 kW > 415m 5.36 kW (not a typo)
WLFL-27 Raleigh, NC 568 kW > 910 kW
KMOT-10 Minot, ND 4.75 kW > 8 kW
KHAS-5 Hastings, NE 2.8 kW > 7 kW or 45 kW
KNOP-2 North Platte, NE 3.61 kW > 16 kW or more
WLAE-31 New Orleans, LA 66.7 kW > 200 kW
KXVO-15 Omaha, NE 530m 301 kW > 475m 486 kW
WPVI-6 Philadelphia, PA 2.548 kW > 4.8 kW
WTHR-13 Indianapolis, IN 6.75 kW > "the full amount" (13.5 kW?)
KOSA-7 Odessa, TX 7.53 kW > 160 kW (wowza)
KOAM-7 Pittsburg, KS 4.2 kW > 15.33 kW
KOED-11 Tulsa, OK 396m > 521m
WENH-11 Durham, NH 8.27 kW > 16 kW
WTVF-5 Nashville, TN 4.28 kW > 22 kW
WQED-13 Pittsburgh, PA 6.42 kW > 19.5 kW
WBPG-25 Gulf Shores, AL 67.5 kW DA > 1000 kW ND
WEDU-13 Tampa, FL 17.1 kW > 40 kW
WBOY-12 Clarksburg, WV 6.55 kW > "more"
WREX-13 Rockford, IL 5.07 kW > 12 kW
WGEM-10 Quincy, IL 5.56 kW > 12 kW
KFMB-8 San Diego, CA 5.42 kW > 11.1 kW
KCET-28 Los Angeles, CA 107 kW > 190 kW (dispute with KEYT-DT 27 Santa Barbara)
WGTV-8 Athens, GA 15.6 kW DA > 18 kW ND
WVAN-9 Savannah, GA 9.72 kW DA > 20 kW ND
WCIQ-7 Mount Cheaha, AL 19 kW DA > 21 kW ND
WAAY-32 Huntsville, AL 50 kW > 468 kW
KSWT-16 Yuma, AZ 196 kW > 510 kW
WCAX-22 Burlington, VT 435 kW > 443 kW or 550 kW depending on Canada issues

Also of note is that Bluestone Holdings, owner of WCTI listed above, is also upset about the low power of these stations, but provides no specific level of power they'd like:

WCYB-5 Bristol, VA 6.78 kW
KRCR-7 Redding, CA 11.6 kW
KECI-13 Missoula, MT 16.1 kW
KCFW-9 Kalispell, MT 3.2 kW
KTVM-6 Butte, MT 6.81 kW

A pair of petitioners including Northern California Public TV wants 32, 41, and/or 51 allocated to Weaverville, CA. They request two of the three, one for each applicant.

There was an objection to WNYA-51's request to be allocated to channel 13 and broadcast from west of Albany from WNYT-13/12.

WLLS-CA in Indiana, PA is fighting WPCW-DT, claiming the station should be forced to stay on channel 30 and from their current site near Johnstown. WPCW-DT wants to be on channel 49 licensed to Jeanette and broadcasting from the WPCB tower.

Whew.

- Trip

Nitewatchman

05-24-07, 10:42 PM

WTHR-13/46 Indianapolis, IN wants more power on 13, if FCC declines to grant it to them, they want 46 instead of 13 ...

WTHR-13 Indianapolis, IN 6.75 kW > "the full amount" (13.5 kW?) ...

Some comments on this one ... Note -- Updated this entire post including better wording than my original post+providing more details :

After reading the comments on this one which were submitted to FCC -- At this point I think this one has to do with non-D/A I think WTHR expected given their filings during channel election process vs. D/A they say in their comments is specified in the new, proposed post-transistion DTV table. Note: I don't think I have the antenna pattern data available from proposed DTV table to look at, other than what dispatch/WHTR submitted to FCC in this engineering statement (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518723116) ...

I was about to say, without having more info, I also wonder if it could even be some sort of accidental error on FCC's part rather than what is described in these comments from dispatch regarding this matter. (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518723115)

However, I do notice there is also this letter (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519410852) stating they met with some FCCfolks and discussed this issue with them in a meeting on 5/1/07 -- there are also several attachments as noted with coverage maps+Polar plot the letter says was discussed at the meeting available at ECFS for this proceeding under a record for a 5/10/07 date .... I decided not to provide links to those as I don't think anything "stood out" to give us an idea of what they might have discussed or perhaps come to any resolution on in the meeting .....

As Trip said, "whew!" ...

I think it is cool this stuff is available to public, but some of it certianly is difficult to "interpet" properly ...

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

You know, looking at those comments regarding WTHR and some of the other allotments as specified in the current proposed new DTV table -- In hindsight, if it would have been possible, I wonder if it would have been better, especially for stations moving to different channels, if they could have had more info, earlier in this process(such as during channel election) concerning such details as ERP and D/A patterns regarding what was going to "go" into the DTV table for their TCD's ...

foxeng

05-25-07, 05:56 AM

I know in some situations, what the stations proposed in engineering statements and what the FCC would let stations do post transition were two different things. It seems the FCC used a much tighter standard in deciding post transition coverage than what has been historically used in the analog world and even in the early DTV transition. They never allowed waivers on it even for a .1 or .2 % difference in interference above what is currently in place. Because of that, stations that otherwise would have been able to use a channel non-DA under previous rules were either locked out entirely or had to propose restricted DAs to use a certain channel. I personally know of several stations that happened to, but I can't publicly comment on which ones at this time.

sebenste

05-25-07, 10:33 AM

Trip, Jeff, Fox, etc...

Great discussion, let's keep it going. Trip, I added your stations requesting to change power list to the first post.

I will say this. The FCC, IMO, really did the broadcasters going to VHF-HI from wherever a disservice by giving them such low power. Stations are trying to squeeze every dollar they can, obviously, and this process has bankrupted or will bankrupt a handful of stations. To give them 5 kw on channel 13, say, and then "later" you can upgrade to 100 kw or whatever...that really hurts stations, the digital transition, and the public's acceptance of it. Who wants to watch a picture breaking up when you're 20 miles away from the transmitter, because you only have 5 kw?

We know what the power limits are on VHF-LO/HI, and UHF. For crying out loud, give the public the watts they deserve! 5 kw is STA power on VHF-HI, as far as I am concerned.

dline

05-25-07, 01:59 PM

And of course the VHF-low ones are really getting squeezed, though it appears many don't know it yet because it's uncharted territory.

I was looking myself to see if there was anything from WHBF in the Quad Cities (licensed to Rock Island, IL) or WOI in West Des Moines (licensed to Ames) and saw nothing. If there are problems with WOI's 3.91 kW on Channel 5 or WHBF's 3.88 kW on Channel 4, we'll have to learn about them the hard way.

With fewer stations on these channels, there should be a little room for a boost.

Trip in VA

05-25-07, 02:28 PM

sebenste

05-25-07, 04:23 PM

afiggatt

05-25-07, 04:42 PM

I just realized that with the moves now of KJNP and WOAY, there are now only two stations in the US on channel 4.

WDKY Danville/Louisville, KY Fox (which tried to move off of channel 4 at one point in the past)
WHBF Rock Island/Quad Cities, IL/IA

I wonder if the FCC might try to move them somewhere else and reclaim channel 4 with such a small number of occupants?
Well, there is no guarantee that the FCC will allow KJNP and WOAY to move to a different channel assignment. We need to keep in mind that these are requests and submissions and the FCC is not likely to grant all of them. But with no more than 2 to 4 full power stations on VHF 4, you are right, that will eventually lead to pressure to reclaim the frequency space. There are some low power stations opting for low VHF. Might we see a rush (of some sort) of low power stations, especially the religious stations, to the unused VHF channels? Many of them really don't care that much about actual OTA reception, but put up the low power station so they can get carried on the local cable systems.

There is a analog W06CJ low power station that started up very recently on VHF 6 in the Washington DC area in Arlington, VA. Spanish Language station. I don't get the station, but I am out of their small coverage area and don't have an antenna for low VHF (tempted to hook up a rabbit ear antenna in my attic length optimized for VHF 6 to see if it comes in at all). This is why I am wondering if we will see a bunch of low power stations pop up in low VHF once we are past the analog shutdown. Of course, they may be told to move to other channels if one of the low VHF channels was re-assigned, but possession does count for something in the political process.

foxeng

05-25-07, 07:09 PM

We know what the power limits are on VHF-LO/HI, and UHF. For crying out loud, give the public the watts they deserve! 5 kw is STA power on VHF-HI, as far as I am concerned.

5 kW isn't as small as you might think in digital for VHF-hi. Our channel 8 316 kW analog translates to 15 kW digital ch 8 pretty well. I have seen two studies that are very close in coverage for us post transition.

sebenste

05-25-07, 08:29 PM

5 kW isn't as small as you might think in digital for VHF-hi. Our channel 8 316 kW analog translates to 15 kW digital ch 8 pretty well. I have seen two studies that are very close in coverage for us post transition.

Fox,

Really? We have 4.4 kw WBBM breaking up 20 miles away with atmospherics. OK, that's probably very close to apples and oranges here, in dealing with reality, and not what the FCC says works on VHF-LO. But still...I have a 16 kw, 1400' WWTO-DT 35 miles to my southeast on channel 10. Can't lock it; it comes close and on calm nights I get it. Yes, I am in a river valley, but can get all the other stations from Chicago across it. Although there is a hill to my southeast blocking some of the signal, the high-res L-R maps generated by Andy Lee show I should have a good shot at it (though indoors in an attic, a VU-160 shooting through 3 townhomes...yeah, I know, it's tough).

dline

05-25-07, 08:37 PM

This is why I am wondering if we will see a bunch of low power stations pop up in low VHF once we are past the analog shutdown. Of course, they may be told to move to other channels if one of the low VHF channels was re-assigned, but possession does count for something in the political process.I'm hoping not too much, if any, of this white space is reassigned so that we have some room for growth.

Right now we get 16 channels from eight stations over-the-air even in little ol' Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and I'm glad we didn't choke off that growth by assuming that there would never be a need for a fourth or a fifth station in a market this size.

Nitewatchman

05-25-07, 11:30 PM

5 kW isn't as small as you might think in digital for VHF-hi. Our channel 8 316 kW analog translates to 15 kW digital ch 8 pretty well. I have seen two studies that are very close in coverage for us post transition.

Naw, man, don't you know it's ALLWAYS the stations(or FCC's) fault ... Not enough power, regardless if the issues involved are really interference from various household appliances, terrain atteuation, attenuation by having antenna indoors, multipath, or perhaps even poor VHF band performance from some receivers/etc ..... The "signal meter" is showing low or "0" readings, so it MUST be not enough power ... ;)

But seriously .... Yep. Same here AFAIK regarding a local DT on 10 currently running 16.3KW ERP. That's maximized win Non DA, they maximized a couple of years back a small fraction of a db from 13.7KW ERP, their post-transmstion allocation is 15.4KW ERP. They are one of the stations that was granted a "use it or lose it" waiver until feb 17,2009. But, that isn't a power issue, it's because of the analog transmit antenna(top mount), and digital antenna(side mount), with the DTV currently covering 98.4% of their analog's coverage area .... BTW, I don't know what they might be thinking about doing, but it seems to me in their case it makes more sense+would be more efficent(including for tower crews given all the other stuff they're going to have to do) if FCC simply allowed them to wait until AFTER analog shut off before moving the DTV antenna to top mount tower posistion ... that doesn't seem to be an "option" FCC said much if anything about in the 3rd DTV review NPRM, however ...

Anyway, 15KW ERP, of course would only be about 4.5db more signal than 5KW ERP .... sure, that's a 1.5x reduction in power, but I think that's really only a small piece of the pie when you consider it's typical that usually the majority, or at least a large portion of the population within coverage area can easily have 40~60db MORE signal than is needed for reception, including of course regarding 5KW or 15KW ERP VHF stations ...

From many comments I've read on this forum over the years, I have the feeling many people seem to have a quite incorrect general understanding of "power" .... Especially perhaps when it comes to directional antenna patterns or when they're used to seeing the bigger numbers for "peak" power numbers for analog vs. the "average" power as measured for digital ... Then, there's also the fact that we need less signal with digital for reception vs what is needed for decent analog reception ...

It's understandable, though I suppose -- a number like 1000 just "seems" like a LOT more than say, a number like 500 .... Until you understand 500KW ERP is only a factor of 1x less power than 1000KW ERP, and ONLY about the same as the signal loss from 75FT of RG6 on UHF or a 2-way splitter ...

But, I've tried and tried and tried until I'm blue in the face, nevertheless, time and time again someone in my local threads will venture to FCC site and see "1000KW ERP" from one UHF DTV station, and "138KW ERP" for another, and will do something like tell someone having reception problems from 4 miles from the tower that they aren't receiving the 138 KW ERP station because they are at "low power" and it's "all sinclair's or so and so's fault"/etc/etc/etc(And no, i'm not exaggerating this exact thing has happened at least twice, now) ... Of course, in that particular circumstance, the station running 138KW ERP *IS* running at full power, just as they will be with the same facilities post-transistion .... Doesn't matter what I say, or point out regarding the 1000KW ERP station's directional antenna pattern when applicable+the receive location is in the null+getting less than 138KW squirted their way from that stations, or that there are some folks recieving the 138KW ERP station just fine with antenna in attic 60 miles away, 138 is just a 'significantly' smaller number than 1000, and that's what is important ... LOL ....

anyway, enough of that ... Personally, I was even pleasantly surprised regarding Low Power STA's some DTV stations in my area were running earlier on during transistion, at least when the transmit antenna was up nice+high. One was running 7.5KW ERP(with a 250W TPO via solid state transmitter) on UHF 34 32 miles distant+the reception here from 32 miles+down in a valley was just as perfect then as it is now with them running 400KW ERP ... In fact a couple of us(including me) reported detecting a signal from them, presumably just off their exciter shortly before they first came on the air ... That being said, can't say I saw many reports of successful reception when that station was operating with that STA from folks using indoor antennas, and DA and quite a null in antenna pattern towards a "signficant" portion of population in area(as little as .19 relative field value, or approx 270Watts ERP in that direction -- but not in my direction) probably didn't help with that either ... So sure - regarding indoor antenna reception in some cases, or issues involving terrain shielding or fringe reception, especially on higher frequencies some folks are allways going to beneifit from "more power" ...

But, overall, at this point I'm not sure I understand for DTV why much more than about 125~250KW ERP or so is necessary on UHF, or much more than 15~30 KW or so on VHF ....

Of course, the difference between say, 250KW ERP and 1000KW ERP isn't all that great (about 6db) on the receiving end, but I'd think it's another story entirely regarding all the extra power required to run the transmitters, especially when lower gain non-DA is used ....

sorry for the long rant/post on power, but it's nice to hear someone here occasionally tell it like it is .....

NashDigie

05-26-07, 01:51 AM

I don't know if anyone has found this or not, It is possibly every station's post transition channel and their ERP output the FCC is allowing them to have. I looked at it and found it interesting. This may be old news though, because it was released on Nov. 7, 2006. Anyways, the link to the list of stations is below. It is a text document. The ERP output is about the 8th column over from the state and city column. That's all I have at this moment.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/dtv/appendixb/AppendixB_stations.lis

NashDigie signing off.

foxeng

05-26-07, 08:39 AM

Fox,

Really? We have 4.4 kw WBBM breaking up 20 miles away with atmospherics. OK, that's probably very close to apples and oranges here, in dealing with reality, and not what the FCC says works on VHF-LO. But still...I have a 16 kw, 1400' WWTO-DT 35 miles to my southeast on channel 10. Can't lock it; it comes close and on calm nights I get it. Yes, I am in a river valley, but can get all the other stations from Chicago across it. Although there is a hill to my southeast blocking some of the signal, the high-res L-R maps generated by Andy Lee show I should have a good shot at it (though indoors in an attic, a VU-160 shooting through 3 townhomes...yeah, I know, it's tough).

Yes, VHF-low and VHF-high is talking apples and oranges. The frequency range of channels 2-6 are 54-88 MHz and 7-13, 174-216 MHz and that brings in different propagation characteristics as well as how noise, man made and natural are distributed. Take into account as well interference from analog stations that will not be there post transition.

It is a known and verifiable fact that with the addition of digital stations in with the analog stations, interference of analog stations has increased to the point that some analog stations have reduced coverage area because of it. It also has been proven that digital stations that could be received easily early on in the transition are more difficult to receive now that most stations are on at full power, even though receiver rechnology has greatly improved over the last 10 years. And I am just talking about UHF stations in this example.

The problem with VHF low is the fact that natural and man made noise takes so much power to overcome. You see that now in analog. You do not have near the problems in VHF high and you can see that on analog as well. Propagation between the two bands differ greatly as well. Channels 2-6 are much more prone to tropo than 7-13 with channel 2 and 3 being the worst. The MUF will be at channel 2 or 3 and stay there for days on end in the spring and summer where channel 6 will only have tropo for hours at a time. Channel 7 will have tropo lasting for several hours but it is significantly reduced in intensity and takes a strong tropo opening to encounter the same level of interference channel 2/3 sees daily.

You also take that the FCC has shoe horned in stations to be sure the analog stations had digital channels. Just off the top of my head I can name two cases where analog/digital interference has made reception near or completely impossible for an analog station with just the addition of a digital station. And both examples are in the UHF range. It can happen anywhere. When you mix transmission modes, as has happened with analog and digital stations on the same channel, you will have interference issues that you would not normally have when you only have one mode of transmission. When analog shuts down, you will start to receive stations that you can't get now because of the analog interference. Let me guess, in your area you have a channel 9 analog right? Analog uses the upper sideband of the signal and digital uses the lower sideband of the signal also known as a N+1 digital assignment. The FCC made every effort to NOT issue N+1's analog/digital because of the overlap of the analog upper sideband signal on the digital lower sideband signal for that very reason. And that is just one of the issues with WBBM-TV/DT situation. They are cursed from many angles, VHF low just being one of them.

To condemn the whole idea of digital stations on VHF-high as a bad idea because you have trouble receiving a channel 10 35 miles away is not logical. There are many reasons for your poor reception. I can show 4 or 5 cases off the top of my head where VHF high digitals work very well and they are not running super power to do it.

It is also a fact that the Northeast and Midwest are beyond saturation of television signals, even digital. To be honest, I am surprised that many stations in the VHF low as well as high bands were allowed on in the Pittsburgh to Detroit corridor along the Great Lakes with Lake Effect tropo abounding. As many on AVS have attested to, living in one city and being able to pick up stations in the other cities in that area is the norm and they live with interference on a daily basis. If nothing else, the digital transition has forced stations to spread out spectrum wise and in the end, I think it will improve OTA in those congested areas.

foxeng

05-26-07, 09:13 AM

BTW, I don't know what they might be thinking about doing, but it seems to me in their case it makes more sense+would be more efficent(including for tower crews given all the other stuff they're going to have to do) if FCC simply allowed them to wait until AFTER analog shut off before moving the DTV antenna to top mount tower posistion ... that doesn't seem to be an "option" FCC said much if anything about in the 3rd DTV review NPRM, however ...

My opinion is this was the first time the FCC has even seriously considered HOW to transition from a step-by-step point of view. When stations have brought this up in the past, they were ignored. Bottom line is when Feb 17 2009 comes around, the FCC wants to be FINISHED, COMPLETED, DONE WITH, NO MORE of the digital transtition. They are SO sick of it now.

Anyway, 15KW ERP, of course would only be about 4.5db more signal than 5KW ERP .... sure, that's a 1.5x reduction in power, but I think that's really only a small piece of the pie when you consider it's typical that usually the majority, or at least a large portion of the population within coverage area can easily have 40~60db MORE signal than is needed for reception, including of course regarding 5KW or 15KW ERP VHF stations ...

In the beginning, it was all about the "number" of power. The bigger the number, the better the marketing. How many AM stations in the 50's and 60's and FM's in the 70's routinely touted their power output like that meant they were better because they generated a higher power bill? It all boils down to like signal strength in the digital world. The original digital allocations were based on comparible population, something the FCC is now transitioning to for all coverages, ie, how many people do you serve, not how much coverage area with no persons do you cover. Based on that it takes less power. But then the FCC let stations "maximize" meaning a station could go up in power as much as interference would allow up to the max for the band to fill in the small open spots you couldn't put a station in anyway and to level the playing field between the smaller stations and the bigger stations and that has pretty much done that. In my area, there was only one 5 MW UHF station and a bunch of 1 to 2 MW UHF stations along with 3 full power VHF low and high band stations. Digitally we have two 1 MW, (one VHF low and one VHF high analogs) one 814 kW, (VHF high analog) several 700+ kW, (all UHF analogs) and only two "low power" UHF's, one is 102 kW at 1700 ft and one at 194 kW at 900 ft (both UHF analogs). The 102 kW at 1700 ft has more coverage now than they do as a 1 MW at 500 ft analog.

From many comments I've read on this forum over the years, I have the feeling many people seem to have a quite incorrect general understanding of "power" .... Especially perhaps when it comes to directional antenna patterns or when they're used to seeing the bigger numbers for "peak" power numbers for analog vs. the "average" power as measured for digital ... Then, there's also the fact that we need less signal with digital for reception vs what is needed for decent analog reception ...

Correct. See above.

It's understandable, though I suppose -- a number like 1000 just "seems" like a LOT more than say, a number like 500 .... Until you understand 500KW ERP is only a factor of 1x less power than 1000KW ERP, and ONLY about the same as the signal loss from 75FT of RG6 on UHF or a 2-way splitter ...

Yep, again see above.

But, I've tried and tried and tried until I'm blue in the face, nevertheless, time and time again someone in my local threads will venture to FCC site and see "1000KW ERP" from one UHF DTV station, and "138KW ERP" for another, and will do something like tell someone having reception problems from 4 miles from the tower that they aren't receiving the 138 KW ERP station because they are at "low power" and it's "all sinclair's or so and so's fault"/etc/etc/etc(And no, i'm not exaggerating this exact thing has happened at least twice, now) ... Of course, in that particular circumstance, the station running 138KW ERP *IS* running at full power, just as they will be with the same facilities post-transistion .... Doesn't matter what I say, or point out regarding the 1000KW ERP station's directional antenna pattern when applicable+the receive location is in the null+getting less than 138KW squirted their way from that stations, or that there are some folks recieving the 138KW ERP station just fine with antenna in attic 60 miles away, 138 is just a 'significantly' smaller number than 1000, and that's what is important ... LOL ....

To people who just want to watch television, it is all so much techno babble and they don't care about it. If they can see a station that is 10 kW and can't see a station with 1 MW, the 1 MW station is stupid for not having enough power. D'OH!

Nitewatchman

05-26-07, 02:33 PM

Don't want to take anything "away" from your excellent posts, but do have a couple of comments regarding your comments about tropo ...

Channels 2-6 are much more prone to tropo than 7-13 with channel 2 and 3 being the worst. The MUF will be at channel 2 or 3 and stay there for days on end in the spring and summer where channel 6 will only have tropo for hours at a time. Channel 7 will have tropo lasting for several hours but it is significantly reduced in intensity and takes a strong tropo opening to encounter the same level of interference channel 2/3 sees daily.

What you say regarding 2-6 and MUF sounds like a good description of what happens with E-skip, not tropo. However, it is extremely rare for E-skip MUF to rise much above FM band into higher VHF frequencies - It does happen. Very, very rarely however, including into Hi-VHF TV band.

Tropo, on the other hand generally effects UHF(and even higher frequencies) as much as VHF. In fact, with a "true" tropo duct as opposed to troposcatter(which is generally more common), there is a LUF (lowest usable frequency) involved .... The duct acts much like a open ended wave guide, with the LUF corresponding directly to wavelength involved and the width of the duct ... What I've sometimes seen happen with tropo ducting is, at first, you'll only see distant signals from a particular direction on the mid to upper UHF channels, then as things stablize+the duct grows "wider", you'll start seeing distant stations on lower frequencies, often down to hi-VHF TV band, but not allways down to low VHF.

That being said, I can see how the effects of "tropo", (using it not quite accurately IMO as a more extremely " general" term) can, in some or many cases can probably seem more "noticable" or frequent on lo-VHF - I think that's because small changes in "K factor" (mostly refraction) that are allways occuring(but not as much in drier winter months at least in this area) may be more more noticable to folks on Lo-VHF where the longer wavelenth lo-VHF signals can "bend" a little better around terrain or curvature of earth than is the case with signals on higher frequencies even if there is really not much "enhanced propagation" going on .... In my experience at least, nearby terrain issues usually have almost just as much(or more) of an effect regarding reception of signals propagated via "tropo" as they do for local signals, and in this sense, again, the lower the frequency/the longer the wavelength, the more the signal can "bend" around hills .....

Also, when there is a good tropo opening occuring that lasts more than just one night/morning, it often *IS* the case that in late-morning and afternoon hours, it can remain at least a bit more stable on VHF while becoming quite unstable on UHF, until the atmosphere "calms down" again in the even the UHF stations start becoming more stable again -- oftentimes(but not allways, depending upon what is going on with the inversion and the "weather"/etc), the "peak" of stability(and strongest/ most distant signals) will occur in the morning hours, just after the sun rises ....

I have stations within 100 Miles on every VHF-LO channel for example. (On 4+6 -- 3 stations for channel 4(one of those is DTV), 2 stations for channel 6 stations in different directions), and I almost see ALL of those ALL the time, but slight differences/changes in the propagation conditions mean the signals from the more distant ones is often(almost allways really) varying to some extent, without, I think, what I would call a "real" tropo opening involved ... also think these things may also be easier to see on VHF(lo-VHF especially perhaps) in some cases, because of issues such as less signal loss in the user's feedline on the lower frequencies vs the case for hi-VHF or UHF, possibly perhaps in some cases lower NF for some (analog anyway) VHF tuners, and possibly in some cases the better performance(or "greater capture area so to speak) on VHF from typical VHF/UHF combo antennas ...

foxeng

05-26-07, 04:19 PM

sebenste

05-26-07, 07:42 PM

It is a known and verifiable fact that with the addition of digital stations in with the analog stations, interference of analog stations has increased to the point that some analog stations have reduced coverage area because of it. It also has been proven that digital stations that could be received easily early on in the transition are more difficult to receive now that most stations are on at full power, even though receiver rechnology has greatly improved over the last 10 years. And I am just talking about UHF stations in this example.

Tell me about it! Here in the Chicago area, the Madison, WI digitals stomp on the Chicago analogs in the far western/not-so-far northwestern suburbs, with even mild tropo.

The problem with VHF low is the fact that natural and man made noise takes so much power to overcome. You see that now in analog.

Definitely.

You do not have near the problems in VHF high and you can see that on analog as well.
I would disagree to some extent here. In the Chicago area, we get considerable noise on channels 7-13 as well, ESPECIALLY on 7-11. That is one reason why, among many, that I am not locking WWTO-DT at 16 kw on channel 10
just 35 miles to my south. Noise, shooting through 3 townhomes, being indoors, a hill on the south side of the county, are all factors in this.

You also take that the FCC has shoe horned in stations to be sure the analog stations had digital channels. Just off the top of my head I can name two cases where analog/digital interference has made reception near or completely impossible for an analog station with just the addition of a digital station. And both examples are in the UHF range. It can happen anywhere.

...and we have a channel 10 analog (PBS), high power in Milwaukee. I point my big VHF antenna at it, I can see a picture, right over the digital 10 station to my south.

When you mix transmission modes, as has happened with analog and digital stations on the same channel, you will have interference issues that you would not normally have when you only have one mode of transmission.

Yep, I discovered that after several stations within 100 miles of me boosted power. WTTW-TV PBS 11 Chicago is hit with digital hash by 4 stations from different directions (Madison, WI; Lafayette, IN, Grand Rapids, MI and one other I can't remember). Reception out here is lousy as a result.

When analog shuts down, you will start to receive stations that you can't get now because of the analog interference.
Absolutely. I get low signal "strength" on WHA-DT 20 Madison 90 miles to my northwest, a 100 kw'er that gets slammed by WYCC-TV 20 Chicago at 3 MW. One day, WYCC had a tranny failure and WHA-DT just boomed right in when I rotated my ChannelMaster 4228 at it in my attic!

Let me guess, in your area you have a channel 9 analog right?

Good ol' WGN-TV 9, yeppers.

Analog uses the upper sideband of the signal and digital uses the lower sideband of the signal also known as a N+1 digital assignment.
I'm very glad you brought this up because I don't understand this.
I thought broadcasters transmitted on a "channel", an exact, specific frequency, and it "splattered" onto accepted adjacent frequencies up and down the "dial".

The FCC made every effort to NOT issue N+1's analog/digital because of the overlap of the analog upper sideband signal on the digital lower sideband signal for that very reason. And that is just one of the issues with WBBM-TV/DT situation. They are cursed from many angles, VHF low just being one of them.
Ah, because the analog "splatters" onto channel 3. This makes sense.

To condemn the whole idea of digital stations on VHF-high as a bad idea because you have trouble receiving a channel 10 35 miles away is not logical.

I'm sorry I gave you that impression. Per my discussion above of the hassles I have in getting WWTO-DT, it's multiple issues. I am not saying VHF-HI should go; in most areas, it works extremely well, as you note.

There are many reasons for your poor reception. I can show 4 or 5 cases off the top of my head where VHF high digitals work very well and they are not running super power to do it.
But are they on mountains or running 1800' antennas? I bet. And even so, how is their reception in thunderstorms? In urban areas?

It is also a fact that the Northeast and Midwest are beyond saturation of television signals, even digital. To be honest, I am surprised that many stations in the VHF low as well as high bands were allowed on in the Pittsburgh to Detroit corridor along the Great Lakes with Lake Effect tropo abounding.

"Lake effect tropo"...I'll have to remember that term! Yes, the lakes do cause temperature inversions that make VHF-HI and UHF signals in spring-summer have a field day. Last summer, I was getting analogs from northwest Pennsylvania with my attic antenna. Whee!

As many on AVS have attested to, living in one city and being able to pick up stations in the other cities in that area is the norm and they live with interference on a daily basis. If nothing else, the digital transition has forced stations to spread out spectrum wise and in the end, I think it will improve OTA in those congested areas.

Absolutely. And, you talked about power below. We used to have a channel 27 up on Sears tower at 1600' broadcast at STA power of 15.1 kw. I got that 50%-75% of the time; I would have gotten it 100% of the time if high-powered WISC-TV 27 from Madison (a true blowtorch) didn't interfere some 90 miles to my northwest.
Light winds, even during the day, WISC wanted to come in, even though it was 120 degrees to the "left" of the Chicago stations.

But yes, power isn't everything. Up until recently, our FOX affiliate (side-mount antenna) was at 1.8 kw on an STA on channel 42. You could lock it 40 miles away! When the winds came off the lake, I'd get WNDU-DT pointing the antenna east, and the FOX affiliate to my northwest when I pointed it that way. So yep, I know low power can still go far, on UHF. But VHF isn't as good with low power due to man-made noise in metro Chicago. I'm sure once you get away from the suburbs, things quiet back down.

Nitewatchman

05-26-07, 08:03 PM

I was using the word "tropo" in a VERY generic term. You can get so hung up in the syntax and miss the meaning that I wanted to avoid all of that difference with enhancement, tropo and E and F skip and how you tell the different. Too much for what we are talking about here.

OK, I'll say it more "simply", but still accurately, but this time I won't go out of my way to try to be especially "nice" about it.

What I think you are mostly talking about is quite "normal" enhanced signal propagation. I would refer to it as troposcatter, but I agree tropo is fine and accurate enough. It happens all the time to some extent+to varying degrees, and especially is more of an issue regarding interference among stations in warmer months. Especially in the regions you mentioned, and for instance along gulf coast).

But, there is no MUF involved with it, at least not below 1GHZ or so. Usually and generally the distant non-local signals propagated in this manner are fairly weak and sometimes quite unstable. But not allways, as it sometimes can involve quite strong signals as well.

In reality, It effects UHF and higher frequencies just as much as VHF, but for reasons I've already mentioned(and probably more), it may be more "noticable" in some, or many circumstances on Lo-VHF, or even hi-VHF. The ways to improve this part of the "problem" are probably to have greater spacing between co-channel allotments/reduce power HAAT/etc, with of course even greater spacing necessary for low-VHF --- The latter certianly doesn't seem like it will be a problem for low-VHF DTV post transistion ;)

And, as you say, the situation regarding this, in general should and I think *will* get better once the analogs are gone and we have only digitals using the spectrum, even though there is going to be less of it(ch 2-51 vs ch 2-69) .....

At this point in the Sunspot cycle, we are dealing more with tropo than E layer anyway and will for a couple more years so I decided to not confuse things.

Solar/sunspot Cycle has nothing to do with sporadic-E("e-skip"), which is the E-layer propagation we often get in summer months on low-VHF TV band. E-skip is just as intense(sometimes more) during solar mininum as during Solar Max and periods in between. That's been known now for 60 years, but unfortuently it seems to be a myth that just won't go away. probably partly because I've heard if not currently, not too long ago it was even printed in engineering textbooks ....

In fact, we've had quite a bit of e-skip activity in my region over the past few weeks, and I believe we are currently near the minimum of sunspot cycle. Dx'er's in my region which don't have a strong local on 2 like I do have reported seeing it on an almost daily basis the past few weeks. One of them in fact reported an opening this morning with MUF up to channel 5, I missed it however as I was busy with other things ...

F-layer skip is a "solar max" thing, and MUF has never gotten much above 60MHZ or so AFAIK ....

..... there are so many things that have to be taken into account on reception, no matter what channel it is on and no channel is a pancea. They ALL have their issues in one way or another.

I certianly agree with that 100% ...... That's exactly what I'm saying too ....

Nitewatchman

05-26-07, 08:53 PM

That is one reason why, among many, that I am not locking WWTO-DT at 16 kw on channel 10 just 35 miles to my south. Noise, shooting through 3 townhomes, being indoors, a hill on the south side of the county, are all factors in this.

You probably already know this, but Keep in mind, if they are SE of you as you indicated in a previous post(rather than South as you say in above quote), you're also not getting 16KW ERP from them due to your location and their directional antenna pattern. One reason directional antenna patterns are sometimes necessary is to protect other stations from interference.

See the antenna pattern info listed at WWTO-DT FCC TV query here (http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?state=&call=WWTO&arn=&city=&chan=&cha2=69&serv=&type=0&facid=&list=0&dist=&dlat2=&mlat2=&slat2=&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&size=9 ), presumably for the entry under their channel 10 "licensed" facilities.

To figure ERP sent in your direction from them, first find the azimuth bearing that corresponds to the direction of your house FROM their tower. In this case their pattern rotation shows 0 degrees, so we don't have to make any corrections for a pattern rotation from the figures that are shown. Then, under the info for their antenna pattern, find the relative field value which corresponds to that bearing. For instance, you said earlier that they were to your SE, so for below example, I will use a 180 degree "opposite" or, NW bearing from their antenna pattern info, where for 310 degree bearing it shows a .660 relative field value. Now, to calulate ERP squirted in that direction, we use the following formula :

Relative field value in your direction SQUARED x ERP that is equivilent to a 1.000 relative field value(16KW ERP in this case) = ERP being sent in your direction ...

So, in this case(assuming the antenna pattern for WWTO-DT in the real world actually matches what it says on FCC site) it's:

(.660x.660) x 16,000 watts = 6969.6 Watts ERP sent towards a 310 degree(true) bearing from their tower.

If you were at a 280 degree bearing from their tower(.430 relative field value) however, it would only be 2958 watts sent your way. That's close to their biggest null, which is .400 relative field value at 270 degrees(directly west of them), or 2560 Watts ERP sent towards the west ....

Or an easier(and more precise I'd think as it's not limited to 10degree increments as is the above, and assuming he is using the correct entry from FCC database for them) way to do this would be to punch in your address or lat/long coordinates using Andy S. Lee's "signal prediction("radar plot") tool at www.tvfool.com , the TX_KW Column in the table results will show the ERP sent in your direction ... (note, unfortunetly however that site appears to be down at present)

Nitewatchman

05-26-07, 11:00 PM

Decided I'd like to comment on this as well ...

But are they on mountains or running 1800' antennas? I bet. And even so, how is their reception in thunderstorms?

There are no mountains here, and their transmitting antenna is about 1000' lower than that if you are referring to AGL or HAAT. And yet I have no problem, even during thunderstorms-* receiving local DT on 10 at 13.7KW ERP(what they were running the first 4 years I was watching them) to 16KW.3 ERP from 32 miles distant. I can even receive it just fine with rabbit ears, indoors.

* - In the 6 years I have been watching them, I have had 2 dropouts on that station(about 1 second of disruption), both occured in Spring 2002, and both were obviously caused by EXTREMELY nearby lighting strikes ... What I mean by extremely close is, in the middle of the day with all the windowblinds+drapes closed the flash from the lightning was bright INDOORS, meaning those lighting strikes occured VERY CLOSE to my antenna .... I've had the same thing happen regarding a weaker local DTV station on UHF 24 (yes, "impulse noise" spikes effect UHF+Hi-VHF as well, just nowhere near as much as low-VHF) ....

Their analog is on 9, BTW. I think that the facilities are co-located probably helps regarding the N+1 issue Foxeng mentioned ....

I also have a full power co-channel analog to them, but 78 miles distant to my ENE, the Local DT is South. this doesn't seem to cause any problem, even though if I aim antenna ENE, the analog signal is almost allways visable to some extent through strong digital "snow"(or hash if you want to call it that) coming in off side of antenna from the local DT on 10 ...

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

That's only one data point from One receiving location of course .... But, I'm sure FoxEng, the stations using VHF-HI (or that will be), and FCC are using a lot more than "one data point" .....

Nitewatchman

05-27-07, 02:18 AM

Sorry for all the posts, but I realize I left some probably important things out in earlier posts and want to be clear on a couple of things :

E-skip+Low VHF :

The reason I'm being such a "stick in the mud" concerning the details on this is precisely because frequent, "intense" and prolonged disruption of local reception on LOW-VHF from E-skip *is* one of the things that makes VHF-LO specifically less suitable for DTV (or analog for that matter) than is the case for Hi-VHF or UHF, where for all intents and purposes, this problem doesn't exist. Except perhaps on average(and this is very rough estimate) for several minutes per year on Hi-VHF, at least in some region of U.S. Compared to many, many hours per year on lo-VHF(you could probably usually measure it in many days or more most years and especially for ch 2). And that's NOT an average with other "years" for Lo-VHF.

Regarding interference via enhanced signal propagation, E-skip on Lo-VHF is something *in addition* to disruption of local reception from "tropo", which *also* effects hi-VHF and UHF just as much(more or less) .....

Signals propagated via E-skip are often(but not allways) VERY strong, often times just as strong as the strongest of local signals. An especially interesting characteristic of it is, ERP/power the station is running that is causing interference via E-skip can often have very little to do with this. It can be very disruptive to local reception, of course moreso the weaker the local signals, and/or when the signals propagated via E-skip are coming from same direction as local signals with use of directional recieve antenna. In a few words, what I've often seen on lo-VHF during intense E-skip activity, especially when MUF is at channel 6 or into FM band -- Is, well, a REAL big mess ....

Again, signals propagated via Tropo are usually weak. But not allways, they can be strong as well. And That is *not* saying there aren't certian situations where tropo is just as bad(or worse), even on say channel 2, perhaps especially in areas where lo-VHF is very "crowded"(such as North east) .... But the same thing can happen on any Hi-VHF or UHF channel as well with tropo, that's not the case with E-skip, it is, again, for all intents and purposes, "TV band wise", limited to lo-VHF "disruption" ...

I don't have time to look it up currently, but As I recall, in whatever FCC proceeding, NPRM, R&O or MO&O was involved regarding "discussion" and comments from interested parties on the issue of whether or not they were going to add 2-6 into the core channels for DTV (which they did of course) : I believe the comments submitted from Fox (not foxeng) on that issue were quite adament that they felt "e-skip" was one of the BIG reasons they did NOT favor the use of ch 2-6 for DTV .....

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

As for Lo-VHF DTV :

To be clear regarding my opinon of it --- First, I must say I think I probably look at it as a much "finer line" than most broadcast engineers I've talked to about it, and most here seem to regarding whether or not the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. And in fact, unlike many here it seems, I was on the "other side" of that fine line until fairly recently ...

The deciding factor for me at this point is that I suspect, even if stations were allowed to run the highest amount of power they could reasonably implement given the size+tower loading requirements of "high power" lo-VHF transmit antennas .... and, even in the *best* of circumstances, such as say, rural viewers using outdoor directional antennas suitable for lo-VHF reception and at a "suitable height" :

Unless something could be done about it to improve the situation in a desireable "enough" fashion(such as without reducing data payload rate significantly/etc -which at least at this point I doubt) --- I expect "impulse noise" spikes from lightning to be strong enough "spikes" and frequent, and disruptive enough even in strong signal areas and under the best of circumstances that it should be a no-go for DTV -- because of the severity of this problem on lo-VHF, and because of the very nature of how DTV "works" vs. analog ...

foxeng

05-27-07, 08:10 AM

Good ol' WGN-TV 9, yeppers.

I'm very glad you brought this up because I don't understand this.
I thought broadcasters transmitted on a "channel", an exact, specific frequency, and it "splattered" onto accepted adjacent frequencies up and down the "dial".

Ah, because the analog "splatters" onto channel 3. This makes sense.

Analog channel 50/digital channel 51 in Chicago has the same problem just not as bad.

Let's see if I can do this without getting too technical on the "hows" of this.

Both the analog and digital signals are AM or Amplitude Modulation. The same AM as on your AM radio. AM has a carrier and within this carrier are 2 independent sidebands, one above center carrier and one below center carrier, called Double Sideband when they contain the same information as with television signals.

In analog, the lower sideband is filtered out before transmission and the carrier is reduced producing a signal that looks like this with f(MHz) being center frequency and the lower band edge being f-1.25 MHz below f(MHz) and the upper being f+4.75 giving the full 6 MHz bandwidth for both visual and aural carriers:

http://www.sencore.com/newsletter/Nov03/HDTV_files/image003.gif

Digital also uses a 6 MHz wide signal but uses the lower sideband and filters out the upper sideband and it looks something like this:

http://www.sencore.com/newsletter/Nov03/HDTV_files/image006.gif

where the pilot carrier (the peak on the left side of the signal) is .31 MHz from the lower edge of the signal and the center carrier is shifted to the upper side of the signal. Since this is a "square wave" you do not see the actual carrier sitting higher up the spectrum as you see the visual carrier in the analog signal. Everything is referenced off the pilot signal in digital unlike analog where the visual carrier is the reference. The digital signal has more "average band power" than analog (you can plainly see that between the two pictures) and therefore doesn't require the same levels to maintain the same coverage. The peak power for analog and the average power for digital. That is where it comes from. That is how you can have 15 kW digital equal 300 kW analog. It takes the same size transmitter to produce either signal, depending on which mode you use. A 30 kw analog transmitter (used for 300 kW) is the same EXACT transmitter used to produce a 4 kW digital signal that produces that 15 kw digital. The only difference is the modulation scheme used. The rest of the box is EXACT. To put it another way, a 30 kW analog transmitter can only produce 4 kW of digital power because the demand on it is 5 times greater than analog and looking at the pictures of the different spectrum, I think you can plainly see the duty cycle difference of the modes.

I'm sorry I gave you that impression. Per my discussion above of the hassles I have in getting WWTO-DT, it's multiple issues. I am not saying VHF-HI should go; in most areas, it works extremely well, as you note.

But are they on mountains or running 1800' antennas? I bet. And even so, how is their reception in thunderstorms? In urban areas?

One station is on my channel to the south of us and they are definitely NOT on a mountain (VERY flat land where they are). They were shoe horned in between us and an analog channel 9 so they are directional to stay out of a both us on channel 8 and the channel 9 that is halfway between them and us and they get very reliable service in their market. It is so good, they decided to NOT go back to their analog UHF channel, which was a viable choice for them. The other station I personally know about is an O & O on channel 12 in Tampa (and no mountains there! :) ) that does pretty well from what we hear (I haven't been there to check it out for myself) and we all talk a lot between ourselves frequently.

sebenste

05-27-07, 03:33 PM

Fox, Jeff, et al,

Thanks so much for that info! Fox, that helps me understand how digital can go so much farther at lower power, and understand the characteristics of it. You did I nice job... I "get it"!

But Jeff, I am actually 10 degrees (I keep saying southeast, sorry, that is wrong) from the transmitter, almost due north of it by 35 miles. What I do not understand is how you come up with the power value. Yes, I know WWTO-DT is directional, so I am actually getting 97%-99% of their power, if their antenna engineering is correct. Having said that, let's assume I am getting 97% of their power, at 10 degrees. I thought to determine actual ERP heading in your direction, you take:

ERP x field value = ERP in your direction

In other words, in my example above:

16,000 watts x .97= 15,520 watts

But you say it is:

16,000 watts x (.97)^2 = 15,054.4 watts

Why is it squared? Not that it matters much to me. I should be getting at least 15 kw from them.

I went through and checklisted what is hindering my reception.

1. Shooting through 3 townhomes to my south; I'm the northernmost townhome, and I am shooting into a bedroom, even getting a weak cable signal on some VHF channels from it
2. Attic/indoor antenna
3. Low in a creek valley
4. Hill at the southern edge of the county weakens the signal
5. Full power analog channel 10 in Milwaukee; frequent modest to mild and occasionally strong tropo due to Lake Michigan and temperature inversions from warm fronts and clear, calm, "radiative cooling" nights where off the surface it stays warm, but at ground level, it is chilly
6. Noise from the Chicago area seen on chahenls 2-6 badly, but also on 7-13

I must say, even on UHF, if thunderstorms are nearby, I do get dropouts on those, too.

Nitewatchman

05-27-07, 05:33 PM

But Jeff, I am actually 10 degrees (I keep saying southeast, sorry, that is wrong) from the transmitter, almost due north of it by 35 miles.

Sorry, yep ... Then of course, as your calculatiing shows, you're pretty much getting the "full" 16KW ERP :) Meaning, 15,054 watts being only a small Fraction of a db less than 16KW ....

I thought to determine actual ERP heading in your direction, you take:

ERP x field value = ERP in your direction

In other words, in my example above:

16,000 watts x .97= 15,520 watts

Nope.

But you say it is:

16,000 watts x (.97)^2 = 15,054.4 watts

Yep. Here's another "easier" way you can do it -- FCC provides an online calulator for this here. You'll notice it produces the same result as the equation I detailed :

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/findvalues.html#RELATIVEFIELD

Not that it matters much to me. I should be getting at least 15 kw from them.

It would matter a lot more if the relative field value was lower, say .500 .....

.500x16,ooo watts = 8000 watts (wrong)

(.500x.500) x 16,000 watts = 4000 watts (correct)

Each 1/2 'ing of power is -3db, or 50% reduction in power from what you started with(in this case relative field value of 1.000 or 16KW ERP) . Db "scale" is logarythmic, however, so within the coverage area(other than on the "fringes"), 3db is only a small piece of the entire "pie" ....

When you consider that you can easily have 20db "extra"(can be less than that, though, but also can be more - I think -20db is a good conservative rule of thumb to use to estimate attenuation of having antenna indoors) attenuation added by having the antenna UNDER the roof(indoors) rather than above the roof, -3db doesn't really seem all that signficant, does it?

Why is it squared?

short non-technical answer -- Because of what the relative field values are and how they "work" ....

Follows is explanation as detailed in OET bullitin #69 (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet69/oet69.pdf) - Note, that's in PDF format --- sorry, that bullitin in its entirety isn't really "specific" to this discussion(although you might find some if it interesting), but it was the best thing I found with the specific info we want via a quick search ....

:
In cases where the Media Bureau Consolidated Database System (CDBS) indicates that a directional antenna is employed, the ERP in each specific
direction was determined through linear interpolation of the relative field values describing the directional pattern. (The directional pattern stored in the CDBS provides relative field values at 10 degree intervals and may include additional values in special directions. The result of linear interpolation of these relative field values is squared and multiplied by the overall maximum ERP
listed for the station in the CDBS to find the ERP in a specific direction.

I went through and checklisted what is hindering my reception.

That seems like a LOT of hinderance !

BTW, I'm not sure I understand from your post where the cable leakage is coming from, but hopefully you or your cableco can do something about that while your waiting for analog shut off :) ....

Update, oh ... I also don't know what you mean by "noise" coming from direction of chicago ... I don't know, but I expect the source of it is probably a lot closer than that ... I know if I stick antenna in attic here, it picks up all sorts of "electrical noise" and RFI on VHF(VHF lo especially) off my home's electrical wiring and various household applicances, as well as some "sparkly stuff" off a nearby ethernet switch+cat 5 cable sitting in the attic ....

with antenna Outdoors, the situation regarding this is much, much better, although on one weaker, distant channel 3 analog , with antenna aimed right at utility lines+a transformer/service "drop" to a neighbors house, I get a bit of "power line noise" issue .....

sebenste

05-27-07, 05:48 PM

That seems like a LOT of hinderance !

BTW, I'm not sure I understand from your post where the cable leakage is coming from, but hopefully you or your cableco can do something about that while your waiting for analog shut off :) ....

Thanks for the links and info. Well, my neighbor has a higher townhome than me, and my attic is actually against his master bedroom on the south side of the townhome. So, when I point the antenna south, I point it to the RG-6 cable that is on with Comcast. On channels 2-13 I can see weak signals from Comcast. I see none on 10, but I know it has to be knocking out some bits with that. I hate dual-shielded RG-6 and no-shielded RG-59!

Update, oh ... I also don't know what you mean by "noise" coming from direction of chicago ... I don't know, but I expect the source of it is probably a lot closer than that ... I know if I stick antenna in attic here, it picks up all sorts of "electrical noise" and RFI on VHF(VHF lo especially) off my home's electrical wiring and various household applicances, as well as some "sparkly stuff" off a nearby ethernet switch+cat 5 cable sitting in the attic ....

Noise such as power lines and other nasty RF. We have so much nosie coming from old, old power lines in metro Chicago that you wouldn't believe the RF problems we have here. It's why WBBM only goes out 20 miles reliably, 40 miles with a monster antenna...

retromzc

05-27-07, 09:09 PM

I'll second that about all of the rf noise in Chicagoland. Often times the static on high VHF analogs 7,9 & 11 is as bad as it is on analog 2 and 5. I have even seen it on UHF 20, 26 and 32 a few times.

Nitewatchman

05-27-07, 09:41 PM

Noise such as power lines and other nasty RF. We have so much nosie coming from old, old power lines in metro Chicago that you wouldn't believe the RF problems we have here.

I can believe it, I just wasn't thinking those power lines were a problem everywhere in chicago area, including 20~40 miles from say, Sears Tower ... As I would have thought those would only be a problem if there are, for example, power line noise issues occuring on power lines quite near the receive location.

Here, several years ago there was arcing problem going on at a point in the line about 1/4 mile up the road from me(about midway between me and my next neighbor on this side of the road ) ..... It was easy enough, and "bad enough" to "find" the general location of where it was occuring by simply walking up the road with a sony walkman even tuned to a "clean frequency" on FM and here and listening to the "sporadic static" noise from it to find the source (I started on AM, walked until the noise became noticably stronger/strongest then switched to FM to see if I could still hear it+better "pinpoint" the source of it) .... It was bad enough on HF ham bands with HF antenna 2000 or So feet away from the source(but only 100FT or so at closest to the power lines where they run in front of my house) that I called the power company about it ... They came out with a truck in a couple of days and had the quickly fixed ...

I shudder to think what might happen if they put BPL on these lines .....

afiggatt

06-02-07, 05:00 PM

A). Going to FCC ECFS search page (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi) and typing in "87-268" for "#1.) Proceeding"
Interesting, requests and letters are still being added under the 87-268 docket. People are still asking for changes in their digital channel allotment.

University of Alabama, owner of WUOA 23 in Tuscaloosa, AL, which is not broadcasting digitally at all with a final DTV channel of 23, the same as their analog channel, now wants their DTV channel to be VHF 4 or 6! The 2nd page of their letter is missing which leaves out part of their justification, but the file is at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519508373. So now we have a station that wants to move from UHF to VHF low?? Anyone want to lay odds on the FCC accepting this request?

Richland Reserve, holder of a new station license in Greeley, CO, wants UHF 49 instead of their assigned UHF 45. See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519417337.

Christian Faith Broadcast of WLLA-DT (DT 45) in Kalamazoo, MI is unhappy that they will have to reduce their digital power to 75 kW because of interference issues. See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519423698.

So if the requests for changes to final DTV channel assignments and power levels are still coming in, when will the absolutely final assignments for channel and broadcast power be made? This has to impact the transition plans for some stations that will have to move from one DTV channel to another or can't go full DTV power until someone else has moved out of the way. We need a breakdown, based on current assignments of how many stations are already broadcasting on their post shutdown DTV channel, how many will be moving to their current analog channel, and how many will be moving from one DTV channel to a different one (that does not match their analog channel). For that matter, how many full power stations will be doing a digital flash cut?

Nitewatchman

06-02-07, 09:18 PM

We need a breakdown, based on current assignments of how many stations are already broadcasting on their post shutdown DTV channel, how many will be moving to their current analog channel, and how many will be moving from one DTV channel to a different one (that does not match their analog channel). For that matter, how many full power stations will be doing a digital flash cut?

In addition to asking for comments regarding several of the same questions you ask(or questions related to them) , I think FCC(more or less) does this breakdown in the text of the recently released 3rd DTV review NPRM. The relevant text involved from paragraphs 17+18, and 29 from the 3rd DTV review NPRM follow :

17. We have proposed post-transition channel assignments for all eligible stations. In the proposed new DTV Table, 1,812 stations received proposed post-transition DTV channels. Of these, 1,178 stations received the DTV channel on which they are currently authorized, 517 stations received the NTSC channel on which they are currently authorized, and 117 stations received a different channel from which they are currently authorized.

18. The process of transitioning the entire TV broadcast industry to digital-only operation on each station’s final channels will be complex. Accordingly, stations already should be planning their transition to digital-only service on their post-transition channel. Some stations may now be ready, or very close to ready, to make their transition. We have provided a list of 752 stations in Appendix D hereto that we believe fall into this category and seek input from those stations regarding our assessment.........

............. 29. There are 137 stations that do not have a paired channel (i.e., stations that do not have both an analog and a digital channel), based on the proposed new DTV Table. These stations are commonly referred to as “singletons.” These stations fit in one of the preceding three categories, but they may encounter different challenges and circumstances that deserve special consideration in this review. Specifically, for this discussion, “singletons” include (1) those stations described in footnote 101 of the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order as licensees that did not receive a second or “paired” channel to use during the transition to DTV; (2) those stations that had a paired DTV channel and that we authorized to discontinue providing analog TV service; (3) those paired-channel stations that gave up their interim DTV channel pursuant to “flash cut” approval; and (4) those paired-channel stations that we propose to allow to “flash cut.” Singletons include DTV and analog TV stations, and can be unbuilt, operating at reduced facilities, or fully constructed and licensed. Analog TV singletons will be flash cutting from broadcasting on their analog channel to broadcasting on a digital channel. Flash-cutting often will involve singletons ending their analog TV operation and beginning their DTV operation on their current analog channel, but in some cases will require that a station change to a new channel for post-transition operation. Singleton stations, like those with paired channels, are responsible to ensure that they have completed the construction of their digital facilities by the February 17, 2009 deadline, except for stations whose initial CPs expire later. After February 17, 2009, stations that have not constructed analog facilities may only construct digital facilities on their post-transition channel.

Currently, full text of 3rd DTV review NPRM(until it scrolls off the page/"headlines" at some point as newer headlines are added), it is downloadable from the main FCC media bureau page (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/) under a 5/18/07 date. I don't know why it's not currently, or yet available from the www.fcc.gov/dtv page, where most of FCC's DTV related documents are posted, including the 2nd DTV review R&O refrerenced in paragraph 29 above, which is downloadable from under the 9/7/04 date listing. Suspect 3rd DTV Review NPRM(or at least any R&O that results from it) probably will be added to the DTV documents page at some point.

Appendix D (as noted in the FCC text quoted above) from the 3rd DTV review NPRM contains the list of 752 stations FCC currently "believes" is already operating DTV facilities that are "ready" for post transisition operation, and is included in the full text of the NPRM, and is also available as a seperate download from link I provided above as excel spreadsheet.

PA_MainyYak

06-08-07, 04:04 PM

My eyes! They hurt me!

. .

WLLS-CA in Indiana, PA is fighting WPCW-DT, claiming the station should be forced to stay on channel 30 and from their current site near Johnstown. WPCW-DT wants to be on channel 49 licensed to Jeanette and broadcasting from the WPCB tower.

Whew.

- Trip

I don't understand why the FCC has not yet tossed the WLLS appeal. There appears no merit to their case, and they have other post transition channels available for their low power station.
The FCC has already moved WPCW's city of license to Jeanette (Pittsburgh DMA). OTOH, What I do not understand is why WPCW wanted 49. The station they will share space with (WPCB-DT) is on 50. Two other Pittsburgh area stations operate on 48 and 51. WPCW claims they wanted to vacate 30 because of possible interference with WWCP-DT (29) in Johnstown, but that station will revert to 8 post-transition.
Perhaps some of you engineering types could explain to a simple guy like me how all that band-crowding in Pittsburgh is a good thing?

foxeng

06-08-07, 04:10 PM

Unlike analog, the FCC will allow first adjacent DTV's to site together. It is a money thing for smaller stations.

MeowMeow

06-13-07, 02:45 AM

WPCW claims they wanted to vacate 30 because of possible interference with WWCP-DT (29) in Johnstown, but that station will revert to 8 post-transition.

Is there somewhere we can find an ogranized list of where the stations are going to land after the transition?

Honestly, I'm starting to feel pretty screwed around for all my efforts to get my OTA HDTV up and running.

On the uptick, if I can ever coax 29 to come in from 53 miles away, getting channel 8 to come in will be cake.

goldrich

06-13-07, 03:21 PM

Is there somewhere we can find an ogranized list of where the stations are going to land after the transition?

I believe this site will provide fairly accurate information, even though some changes may come about between now and Feb. 17, 2009.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-18897.htm

Calaveras

06-13-07, 03:40 PM

I believe this site will provide fairly accurate information, even though some changes may come about between now and Feb. 17, 2009.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-18897.htm

The same thing in PDF form from the FCC is here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-150A1.pdf

MeowMeow

06-13-07, 11:51 PM

Brian_O

06-14-07, 03:20 PM

Thanks.

I did a dump of the entire FCC database, along with the list of finalized third round stations Is this something folks might like to see in an easily searchable format? Has it already been done?

Isn't that already available in Appendix B of the PDF identified in the link in Calaveras' post? (The only thing missing is the call sign for each station.) A separate PDF containing only Appendix B is also available on the FCC web site.

afiggatt

06-14-07, 05:07 PM

I did a dump of the entire FCC database, along with the list of finalized third round stations Is this something folks might like to see in an easily searchable format? Has it already been done?
It is not that hard to download the Excel spreadsheet for the 1st & 2nd rounds along with the short one for the 3rd round, combine them, and use that to look up the stations. But the FCC list is incomplete for full power stations and is not finalized. It does not show WABC 7 in NYC which is now known will be getting VHF 7 as it's final digital channel. It would also be useful to add in the Class A and low power stations that are affiliates of the 7 major broadcast networks which provide HD so avsforum members in the smaller markets that may get ABC or Fox only through a LP station could look those up as well. Yes, you could list ALL the low power stations, but that would be a long list.

The problem with putting together a searchable list is that it would have to be made very clear that the assignments are tentative and may change for some stations. Who knows when the FCC will issue a final list for all the full power stations, let alone all the LP and translators? This question prompted me to take another look for documents under the 87-268 docket where 3 more letters have been posted in the past several weeks. So much for a end of February get letters in to the FCC deadline.

WEHT-DT ABC 25 of Evansville, IN wants to switch it's post transition channel from UHF 25 to VHF 7 which they asked for in a June 7 meeting. See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519525085.

KOLO-DT ABC 8 of Reno, NV wants to switch it's post transition channel from 9 to 8 because they are worried about moving the tuning rods for their 45 year old antenna. Maybe they should budget to buy a new antenna? See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519520046.

KCWX-DT CW 2 of Fredericksburg, Texas has already asked to move from VHF 5 to 8. They have posted an interesting engineering statement which explains why possible interference with stations on 7 and 9 in nearby cities won't be much of a a problem because most people in rural areas use rooftop antennas with strong back to front rejection ratios. And it is all rounding error in the models anyway. At least, that is what I got from a skim read of their 43 page letter. See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519525815. Anyone in the business think the FCC might buy this?

MeowMeow

06-15-07, 11:48 AM

Isn't that already available in Appendix B of the PDF identified in the link in Calaveras' post? (The only thing missing is the call sign for each station.) A separate PDF containing only Appendix B is also available on the FCC web site.

I meant something like a a decent search engine, without the gigantic spreadsheet. I program databases, so to me the spreadsheet seems cumbersome.

The excel sheet is not bad, but it needs to be cross-referenced with that larger database so people can see whether the assignments are final or not.

PA_MainyYak

06-15-07, 03:49 PM

I meant something like a a decent search engine, without the gigantic spreadsheet. I program databases, so to me the spreadsheet seems cumbersome.

The excel sheet is not bad, but it needs to be cross-referenced with that larger database so people can see whether the assignments are final or not.

I'm guessing you're mostly interested in the western PA stations.

Generally, most stations in our area will remain on their current DTV channels after analog shutdown.
Exceptions include:
WWCP (FOX8) Johnstown will vacate ch 29 and go back to ch 8
WQED (PBS13) will vacate 38 and return to 13
WQEX (whatever16) is expected to move from 26 to 38.

Here's all the full power stations in the Pittsburgh and Johnstown-Altoona-State College markets:

Station NTSC ch DTV ch/now DTV ch/2009
KDKA 2 25 25
WPSU 3 15 15
WTAE 4 51 51
WJAC 6 34 34
WWCP 8 29 8
WTAJ 10 32 32
WPXI 11 48 48
WQED 13 38 13
WQEX 16 26 38* (proposed)
WPCW 19 49** (see below) 49
WPMY 22 42 42
WATM 23 24 24
WPCB 40 50 50
WKBS 47 46 46
WPGH 53 43 43

** WPCW has not yet been granted a construction permit by the FCC because of an appeal filed by a low power TV operator in Indiana, PA, and so is not yet on the air with a digital signal.

MeowMeow

06-15-07, 03:55 PM

** WPCW has not yet been granted a construction permit by the FCC because of an appeal filed by a low power TV operator in Indiana, PA, and so is not yet on the air with a digital signal.

Slightly oddball follow-up question: what happens to all the LP stations when the switchover occurs?

foxeng

06-15-07, 07:39 PM

MeowMeow

06-16-07, 12:54 AM

They too are either being issued second channels or will flash cut on their current analog channels. Last word from the FCC (and there has been conflicting reports) is that LPTV's and translators will have to be digital by Feb 17, 2009 as well.

Won't this be a bit prohibitive? The cost of transiting from an LP analog to a whatever digital will be monstrous.

Also, my understanding is the FCC is only granting new licenses for LPs to non-profits and educational institutions. So now you gotta get yourself a full power license, found a cult or build a diploma mill.

Trip in VA

06-16-07, 09:31 AM

Won't this be a bit prohibitive? The cost of transiting from an LP analog to a whatever digital will be monstrous.

Also, my understanding is the FCC is only granting new licenses for LPs to non-profits and educational institutions. So now you gotta get yourself a full power license, found a cult or build a diploma mill.
I haven't heard that one. I know that LPFMs fit that category, but I hadn't heard that about LPTV.

- Trip

foxeng

06-16-07, 10:07 AM

Won't this be a bit prohibitive? The cost of transiting from an LP analog to a whatever digital will be monstrous.

Not neccessarily. If they have a transmitter that is not that old, it can be reconfigured as a digital much cheaper than buying all new. And no one says the whole studio infrastructure has to be digital, just that the transmission has to be digital. An SD encoder that converts analog to digital is about $10k average and the PSIP gear can run around $20k (there is cheaper stuff out there but you get what you pay for) and the conversion of the transmitter could be about $15k including the new mask filter for that power level, so for around $50k it can be done. As we get closer to the transition date, prices for this stuff continue to drop with the LP guys in mind, now that the full power guys have all changed and paid the big dollars.

Check out http://www.ktechtelecom.com/ one of the companies that targets small time TV broadcasters in the digital transition.

Also, my understanding is the FCC is only granting new licenses for LPs to non-profits and educational institutions. So now you gotta get yourself a full power license, found a cult or build a diploma mill.

You are thinking LPFM which is a localized FM service. Anyone can hold a LPTV or Class A TV or TV translator or FM translator license. LPFM and LPTV are two completely different services with two completely different goals.

Nitewatchman

06-16-07, 12:38 PM

Last word from the FCC (and there has been conflicting reports) is that LPTV's and translators will have to be digital by Feb 17, 2009 as well.

Is that word on Public record/etc? I would like to hear more about this, as my understanding/reading of the tea leaves at this point is that LP analog shut off will be required at some point, but when that will be has yet to be addressed. All I have seen seems to suggest it won't occur until sometime after analog shut off for full service stations, potentially I expect some time well after feb 17, 2009.

There is no timetable set that I've seen anywhere regarding when analog LP stations have to stop transmitting analog, or submit an application to transistion to digital or risk losing privlige to broadcast, and in fact many LP analog stations have yet to file for either Flash cut or to seek a digital companion channel. I don't see how it could all get done by Feb 17, 2009, even if the commission comes out with rules on it tomorrow ........

My understanding on this is also basically summarized fairly well in the first portion of the "no analog shut off" section of the following article :

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/news/2006.01.25-n_will.shtml

And, Follows is a bit I've seen/noticed from FCC regarding this matter.

I've noticed The commission is issueing new LP DTV CP's, either for Flash cut or digital companion channel with an expiration date beyond Feb 17, 2009. -- 3 years from date of issuance just like it's been for LP analog CP's. For another, they're even still issuing analog LP CP's -- One perhaps interesting case of this in my area involves a Sinclair owned Translator(for WSTR Cincinnati) in Dayton, OH -- W66AQ - They were recently granted a analog CP to move to channel 22 via repurposing Sinclair Dayton station(full service station) WKEF 22's analog (ABC affiliate) facilities -- Although they had to submit a interference agreement with WKEF, I expect they are going to be moving W66AQ to 22 on or just after Feb 18, 2009 .. No DTV app for it yet to flash cut/etc(it took over a year between the time they filed for this to when the app was granted, which seems fairly typical time period regarding granting of CP's/CP mods), so don't know when they'll be going digital on 22.

The last word from FCC I can recall having seen on this issue comes from the LPTV DTV report and order from late 2004 available here:

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

Note: although, keep in mind that these rules were developed BEFORE analog shut off for full service stations was changed to a hard deadline of Feb 17, 2009 -- Hence various comments in that R&O which are probably no longer applicable given that we know where most full service stations will be with DTV after shut off(but not all of them yet, and it's not "set in stone" just yet), and hence the mention of the previous Dec 31, 2006 "rule" in the text I quoted below.

Here's paragraph 17~19 of that R&O(refrerences to footnotes removed) -- IMO, There is more stuff in there that would also lead one to believe they seem to be looking at LPTV analog shut off as something that doesn't have to happen until well after analog shut off for full service stations, but it's too much text to quote a bunch more of it :

17. We conclude that the better, less disruptive, approach would be for the low power television digital transition to be completed at some fixed time after the deadline for full-service television stations. We expect that completion of the full-service transition will result in the return of a sufficient number of channels to permit most LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations an opportunity to operate dual analog and digital operations for some period of time, thereby creating an incentive and opportunity for their viewers to transition to digital service without loss of their existing analog service.

18. Permitting LPTV, TV translators, and Class A stations to continue analog operation on a secondary basis beyond the full-service digital transition deadline will not in any way slow or otherwise detract full-service stations’ ability to complete the DTV transition. Full-service stations will still be required to return one of their channels on schedule irrespective of whatever deadline we shall ultimately set for the low power television and Class A digital conversion. In addition, a later digital conversion for these stations will not adversely affect new commercial and public safety services in the 700 MHz band. As discussed below, all digital TV translator and LPTV stations will be licensed on a secondary noninterfering basis to 700 MHz commercial and public safety licensees. Thus, there will be no harm to the new 700 MHz licensees in this band, who will have primary status.

19. Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) argue that the December 31, 2006, deadline should apply to all analog broadcasting, including low power, and that “Congress would not have desired to leave a small group of television stations perpetually operating in a legacy technology – which would only serve to discourage the digital transition in rural areas.” We disagree. It is not our intention to allow LPTV, TV translator, and Class A broadcasters to permanently operate their analog facilities. Indeed, we seek to hasten their transition to digital service and will work toward the goal of achieving an end-date at, or soon after, the end date of the full-service transition. However, until we have resolved certain issues for full-service stations and more closely approach the end of the full-service DTV transition, we cannot establish a fixed termination date for the low power digital television transition when LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations will be required to cease analog transmissions. It would be irrational and arbitrary to choose such a deadline for these stations at this point, given the remaining uncertainties relating to the full-service DTV transition. We will continue to monitor developments in the DTV transition and the LPTV, TV translator, and Class A marketplace. In our third DTV periodic review proceeding, we will revisit this issue and consider establishing a deadline and/or other criteria for the digital conversion of LPTV, TV translator, and Class A stations.

Note on above --- it also says at end of paragraph 19 they were going to revisit this in 3rd DTV review proceeding .... Ok, well we have the NPRM for 3rd DTV review now, but I see no mention of it in there ... Have they taken this issue up in another proceeding, and if so, which one, and where is the info/documents on it ?

BTW, comments+FCC documents regarding the "Digital LPTV, TV Translator, Booster Stations & Class A TV Stations" (MB 03-185) can be found at ECFS here :

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_proceeding=03-185

The last time I saw it mentioned in Public FCC documents, but this time only specifically refering to digital companion channels for LP DTV was in a FCC document was in the following Public notice from April 2006 regarding Filing window for Digital companion channels, note this *was* after the hard shutoff date of Feb 17, 2009 was put into effect :

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-874A1.pdf

A quote from that document(references to footnotes removed) :

Existing permittees and licensees in these services may either implement an on-channel digital conversion of their analog channel or they may seek a (second) digital companion channel that may be operated simultaneously with their analog channel. Permittees and licensees in these services are not guaranteed a digital companion channel and must identify a channel that can be operated consistent with the Commission’s interference protection rules. At a date to be determined in the future, the Commission will require that the permittee or licensee terminate analog operation, return one of their two channels to the Commission, and operate their station only in digital mode. Permittees and licensees in these services may choose only one of these two methods for converting their existing analog stations to digital.

Nitewatchman

06-16-07, 01:18 PM

foxeng

06-17-07, 10:36 AM

As I stated, officially there are conflicting reports on when LP's are required to convert. Even your quotes from different government agencies contradict each other. Most (NOT EVERYONE) people having to do the conversions are CURRENTLY looking at Feb 17, 2009 as the last day of analog broadcast for all stations, no matter what the power until or if the 3rd DTV Review states differently. Many think that document will once and for all will settle the matter.

I know for a fact that internally the FCC wants this transition totally completed for ALL STATIONS on Feb 17, 2009 and then be done with it. But they have to get it codified in a lasting form to reflect that feeling and that takes time (it has been done for the full power stations and now it has to happen to the non full power stations). I think the 3rd DTV Review will tie up all of the loose ends on that one. The 4th DTV Review likely will be a post mortem of the transition to cover anything that comes up unforeseen because of the transition (very likely).

No matter what the date is, I suspect you will see some (many?) translators and LPs not make the transition because of cost. The big cost has always been in the transmitter and that cost hasn't really dropped. If a LP can't convert their transmitter, then they could have a big hit in cost and that one item alone could drive them off the air. Many LP's that are not owned by a large owner usually buy hand me downs and find ways to cut startup costs and there isn't any such market for digital transmitters yet. Saving grace is that most of the LP's will only need about 1 to 5 KW of digital power from the transmitter and those transmitters are within financial reach of those stations from 3rd and 4th tier transmitter manufacturers. They may also be able to buy a low power digital transmitter that a full power station used prior to going full power. Most of those transmitters were inexpensive to start with and are in the power range many LP's and translators will be operating at but there are not that many of those available. One thousand or less and no telling how many will actually go on the block (less than that number).

The cost of digital converter/encoding equipment has dropped quite a bit in the last 4 years. There is no mandate that a station, full power or LP has to convert their studio to digital, just the transmitter and I wouldn't be surprised if many LP's do not go HD for quite a while and use their current analog infrastructure and convert SD analog to SD digital, something that is quite affordable now.

There are options for translators but in the price range they are looking for, the major manufacturers do not have anything. You will see your 3rd, 4th and 5th tier companies selling complete setups with the bare minimum of equipment to keep those on the air. Again, if the transmitter isn't very old, they should be able to convert it to digital with little problems.

These are some of the main questions the FCC is asking now for the 3rd DTV Review. I would also guess that by the end of summer or sometime in the fall, the FCC will be opening the window for stations to file CP's for their final digital authorizations if they are not operating on their final assignment now. Of course the release of the 3rd DTV Review could delay that as well.

foxeng

06-17-07, 10:53 AM

Update to above post --- Here are a couple more links regarding LP digital this time from NTIA website regarding a program they have to help reimburse costs to upgrade analog LP stations to digital.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/lptv.htm

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/dtv/lptv.html

In the text from both of those links, there is a section which says :

NTIA doesn't really have a say in the date when commercial stations do what since Congress specifically tasked the FCC on this (but as a government agency, they think they can. I have had to deal with NTIA in another life. They are constantly in some kind of a pissing contest with the FCC over territory. FCC is tasked to handle public sector RF spectrum issues while NTIA handles government sector RF spectrum issues, among other non RF standards, relating to the federal government). Officially on this subject, NTIA is suppose to be handling the converter program (government funded) and any additional funding (additional monies from the government to facilitate the transition).

I personally won't put too much stock in NTIA dates on analog shutdown unless they have been coordinated with the FCC.

Nitewatchman

06-17-07, 11:20 AM

As I stated, officially there are conflicting reports on when LP's are required to convert.

As I stated, all I'm asking for is some evidence, other than a post on an internet forum, or less than clear language in a LP DTV Report and order from 2004 which indicates in some fashion that FCC may require LP stations to transistion to digital by Feb 17, 2009.

These are some of the main questions the FCC is asking now for the 3rd DTV Review.

Again, I have read/studied the 3rd DTV review NPRM, am quite aware of the questions the FCC is asking in it, I currently have it sitting on my hard drive currently, and I see no mention in it regarding addressing any issues for LPTV DTV. Of course, the R&O which results could be very different.

I've looked elsewhere as well, and can't find anything on public record regarding the FCC addressing LP DTV rules since the 2004 R&O I provided info on earlier.

Hence why I'm asking these questions when someone I generally trust posts that the "word from FCC" is that LP stations will have to transistion to digital by Feb 17, 2009, even though they're are "conflicting reports" on the matter .... I know what the info in the "conflicting reports is", so where's the info that suggests FCC is even thinking about requiring LP stations to transistion to digital by Feb 17, 2009?

No matter what the date is, I suspect you will see some (many?) translators and LPs not make the transition because of cost.

I expect you are right about that. But, again, at this point, I expect some (or many?) LP stations will still be on the air with analog past Feb 17, 2009 (maybe WELL past that date), and they won't be "pirate" stations.

I expect that because I've seen nothing so far that indicates otherwise.

Now, are Many LP stations working towards transistioning to digital? Thankfully, yes, at least that seems to be the case. About 1/2 of them in my area have applied for flash cut or companion channels, and about 1/2 of those which have applied have received(quite recently) DTV CP's. 2 of those are digital companion channels. None of them are on the air digitally, yet. If it were true their analogs would have to be shut off on feb 17, 2009, I'm not even sure digital companion channel CP's just granted would make much sense in many circumnstances, given (at least in the cases in my area) new transmitting antennas, and a 2nd transmitter would be necessary for the companion channel, and one of the channels has to be returned to FCC.

foxeng

06-17-07, 11:59 AM

As I stated, all I'm asking for is some evidence, other than a post on an internet forum, or less than clear language in a LP DTV Report and order from 2004 which indicates in some fashion that FCC may require LP stations to transistion to digital by Feb 17, 2009.

The next sentence I say this: Even your quotes from different government agencies contradict each other.

Again, I have read/studied the 3rd DTV review NPRM, am quite aware of the questions the FCC is asking in it, I currently have it sitting on my hard drive currently, and I see no mention in it regarding addressing any issues for LPTV DTV. Of course, the R&O which results could be very different.

The FCC can ask anything they want in the NPRM. As was the case with the 2nd DTV Review, what came out of it was not aways what was asked or expected, PSIP mandate being one of them. As you correctly stated, it is the R&O that is important. I also suspect that there will be issues NOT addressed in the R&O that the FCC is asking in the NPRM and other things WILL be in the R&O that are not being asked for in the NPRM now. That is why the FCC does the NPRM comments. They help shape the R&O's. And a definitive LP date HAS to be addressed shortly for things to move along.

Now, I would hazard a guess that IF nothing is stated in the R&O about LP shutdown, the Qualcomm's, etc, who are banking on Feb 17, 2009 to be analog free WILL go into orbit. Based on that lobbying effort, to bet against a total analog shutdown on Feb 17, 2009 would not be prudent, IMO. As I stated above, I fully expect, due to lobbying efforts and time limitations and the FCC's own internal timetable, there will be a definite LP shutdown date in the R&O and from what I can deduce from conversations I have had with several people with better connections than myself and some as late as last week, you will see a Feb 17, 2009 date on LP's. Now WILL the the FCC actually do that? Politics has strange bedfellows. Place your bets.

I've looked elsewhere as well, and can't find anything on public record regarding the FCC addressing LP DTV rules since the 2004 R&O I provided info on earlier.

You don't always get the straight skinny from official public records and as you noted, it has been 2004 since the LP rules were addressed, but that doesn't mean no one has been working toward an end. The FCC is obviously issuing LP digital CP's. I will admit I haven't looked at any to see what the expiration dates are. (pause) OK I just looked at a translator digital CP that was just issued and it has 2010 as the expiration date. But in the absence of a shutdown date, something has to be put there. In all honesty, full power stations that renowned their analog licenses prior to the setting of the Feb 17, 2009 date have 2010 and 2011 and maybe even 2012 as their expiration dates and we both know THAT is NOT a valid date now but it is still there. My gut still tells me something is forthcoming sooner than later. There is just too much off line chatter about it.

Hence why I'm asking these questions when someone I generally trust posts that the "word from FCC" is that LP stations will have to transistion to digital by Feb 17, 2009, even though they're are "conflicting reports" on the matter .... I know what the info in the "conflicting reports is", so where's the info that suggests FCC is even thinking about requiring LP stations to transistion to digital by Feb 17, 2009?

I have told you all I know and can. Believe what you want. I won't hold it against you.

If it were true their analogs would have to be shut off on feb 17, 2009, I'm not even sure digital companion channel CP's just granted would make much sense in many circumnstances, given (at least in the cases in my area) new transmitting antennas, and a 2nd transmitter would be necessary for the companion channel, and one of the channels has to be returned to FCC.

I don't remember the exact dates of the filing windows for the LP CP's (prior to the setting of the Feb 17 date if I remember correctly and certainly the 2004 LP rules set those windows and conditions and so the current CP's being issued are based on that ruling not anything that happened after. And yes, I agree, if a LP gets a companion channel now, it makes little sense to built it out if they plan on going back to their analog channel. The FCC needs to address that and hopefully in the R&O they will. Now if they intend to stay on the digital channel, then get it built and then wait to shutdown the analog. That is my opinion for full power stations too in the same situation as well.

MeowMeow

06-17-07, 01:00 PM

Wow. Didn't realize I had asked such an interesting question.

foxeng

06-17-07, 01:03 PM

It just not you but the people doing the work would like to know too! :)

Nitewatchman

06-17-07, 01:36 PM

The next sentence I say this: Even your quotes from different government agencies contradict each other.

The only thing in any of the quotes(or other portions of the documents I quoted those from) I provided I can find which seems to suggest FCC may be considering a LP analog shut off date anywhere near analog shut off for full service stations was here :

It is not our intention to allow LPTV, TV translator, and Class A broadcasters to permanently operate their analog facilities. Indeed, we seek to hasten their transition to digital service and will work toward the goal of achieving an end-date at, or soon after, the end date of the full-service transition.

Well, I have no doubt they've been "working on that goal", but there seems to be little evidence of it available yet ....

Now, I would hazard a guess that IF nothing is stated in the R&O about LP shutdown, the Qualcomm's, etc, who are banking on Feb 17, 2009 to be analog free WILL go into orbit. Based on that lobbying effort, to bet against a total analog shutdown on Feb 17, 2009 would not be prudent, IMO.

Interesting. I remember coming across some comments from qualcomm at ECFS I think for the LP DTV "procceding". (03-185 ) But I didn't look at them very closely, and ll have to look for them again, and see what they were saying.

In the LP DTV R&O from 2004, I believe FCC clearly made the case that getting the LP's off the out-of-core spectrum wasn't going to be much of an issue, since LP's are secondary+must not interfere with primary services. Including on the reclaimed spectrum, such as say, channel 55.

It seems to me any such lobbying would not even be very applicable or pertinent to the "big picture" given the current LP DTV rules. As any LP stations operating on those frequencies past Feb 17, 2009 HAVE to cease transmitting if they would interfere with those primary services. And, the rules say the LP's HAVE to get off 60-69 after feb 17, 2009, 4 channels/24MHZ there going for public safety uses of course. But, they don't say LP stations have to get off 52-59 after feb 17, 2009, UNLESS they are going to interfere with any new primary services. Just as it is now on ch 2-69 with primary services being full power/full service stations.

There are HUGE sections of the 2004 LP DTV R&O/ rules that deal with these "out of core" LP issues" -- In certian circumstances those rules even allow LP stations to transistion and operate DIGITAL beyond analog shut off for full service stations on some out-of-core channels(ch 52-59) .... Here's a portion of the R&O regarding these matters (Note: I'm quoting from the R&O as I generally find it easier to quote from the R&O rather than dig up the links to the actual "rules" as adopted in the R&O and codifed in CFR 47 regulations ) :

71. Channels 52-59. We adopt our proposal in the Notice to make channels 52-59 available for on-channel conversion from analog-to-digital operation. Pursuant to the application filing process adopted infra, we will also permit TV translator, LPTV, and Class A station incumbents to seek use of channels 52-59 as digital “companion” channels (i.e., to their existing analog TV service), but only where applicants can certify in their applications the unavailability of any suitable in-core channel for this purpose. .....

....In addition, we will require that stations proposing use of channels 52-59 for digital operation notify all potentially affected 700 MHz commercial wireless licensees of the spectrum comprising the proposed TV channel and the spectrum in the first adjacent channels thereto. ......

[ update:
from paragraph 73 - note - "wireless" refers to new primary services on ch 52-59]

...... The secondary digital LPTV or TV translator licensee may not continue operations if such operations would interfere with the primary 700 MHz licensee’s operations after the commencement or change to the wireless service......

76. Channels 60-69. We will limit LPTV and TV translator application proposals for channels 60-69 to on-channel digital conversions of authorized analog stations and to those related to analog or digital channel displacement. In the Notice we noted that all broadcasters, including LPTV and TV translator stations, are statutorily required to vacate the use of this spectrum after the full-service DTV transition ends. Digital low power operation on channels 60-69 must therefore cease at the end of the full-service DTV transition.

Update decided to add the following quote as well :

80. We acknowledge the concerns of public safety and broadband wireless interests about the potential issues associated with permitting digital LPTV and TV translators to use the 700 MHz bands; however, we do not agree that allowing low power broadcasters to use the 700 MHz band on a secondary, non-interference basis for digital facilities would amount to an unconstitutional taking of rights from those wireless licensees that obtained their spectrum at auction. In the channel 60-69 reallocation proceeding, we determined to continue licensing analog low power facilities on a short-term, secondary basis. In the 52-59 reallocation proceeding we retained the discretion to cease accepting applications for additional LPTV and TV translator stations, but did not preclude altogether the filing of such applications. As APTS/PBS points out, the Commission had stated when it reallocated the Lower 700 MHz band (Channels 52-59) in 2001 that it intended to allow for some LPTV use of that band on a secondary basis.

All LP stations in my area on 52-69 in fact have already moved(or have CP's for moving - there is only one, on 55 currently, it has analog CP to move to 32), into the core channels. I would imagine because they realize at some point(even if it may be a very distant point in future), it's at least somewhat likely they're going to have to move in core, either for analog or digital operations.

Qaulcomm and others who have interests in the reclaimed "out of core" spectrum should have no interests AFAIK in in core channel analog LP's. And given the "rules" on it presently(LP stations which may cause interefernce to the new services are required to "get off" that frequency per a notifcation proceedure/etc specified in the rules) , it would seem to me they should also not have much concern regarding post (full service) transistion analog or digital LP operations on those on out-of-core channels either, since LP broadcasters must vacate(whether they are operating analog or digital) those IF they're going to cause interference ...

Of course, we all know many "groups" will of course lobby for their cause no matter how small the "details" involved .... For instance, Why not, perhaps alliviate the need to send a "letter" of notification to LP broadcasters that they'll be soon providing new wireless services+the LP involved will need to cease operations if they can find a way to not have to do that ... I wonder what will cost them more though, all the lobbying efforts, or what they'd need to do to come up with something like those notifcation "letters" .....

As I stated above, I fully expect, due to lobbying efforts and time limitations and the FCC's own internal timetable, there will be a definite LP shutdown date in the R&O and from what I can deduce from conversations I have had with several people with better connections than myself and some as late as last week, you will see a Feb 17, 2009 date on LP's. Now WILL the the FCC actually do that? Politics has strange bedfellows. Place your bets.

I wouldn't want to bet on that one either way ;)

We will soon see, I suppose, at least Hopefully soon! .... Until then, I'll continue to base my comments on the issue on what is "on record" so far, as well as on common sense+what has progressed so far .....

I suppose I might feel a little differently if I had seen any mention of a 2/17/09 LP analog shut off date through the "grapevine" such as in various reputable "broadcasting" related publications, as which occured concerning FCC mandating PSIP in 2nd DTV review R&O......

The FCC is obviously issuing LP digital CP's.

Yes, but they've done NOTHING so far I've seen that REQUIRES LP stations to go digital by any specific date. Other than nebulous statements that at some future point yet to be detirmined LP's will have to convert to digital ....

So far, from what I have seen the LP DTV transistion is really JUST getting started and has been all about allowing LP's to "seek" digital allocations, not "requiring" them to do so ....

Coming out with someting in Summer or Fall 2007 that requires LP's to go digital in 18 months just seems to me to be asking/requiring a little too much of them, especially given what's been put "on record" regarding LP DTV transistion SO far, AND what has actually occured with DTV LP's so far in the real world ...for instance, in my area, perhaps the most commercially important LP(a Class A station) has it's digital companion channel app "in limbo" due to mutual exclusivity issues, and no LP in the area is broadcasting in digital as of yet .... Other than a flash cut app for a TBN translator granted in Fall 2006, all the other DTV CP's that have been granted in my area have occured in the past few months, and it took at least 6 months between the time the apps were filed to when they were granted ...

And especially given the digital companion channel thing, and especially given that we have more than enough on the plate regarding full service stations+analog shut off on Feb 17, 2009!

In all honesty, full power stations that renowned their analog licenses prior to the setting of the Feb 17, 2009 date have 2010 and 2011 and maybe even 2012 as their expiration dates and we both know THAT is NOT a valid date now but it is still there.

Yes, but we have a valid, "on record" hard shut off date for analog full service stations which took years to "hammer out" .....

I have told you all I know and can. Believe what you want. I won't hold it against you.

Thanks for the info. I'm not debating or arguing with you here. I'm seeking more info+attemting to provide accurate info regarding the info "on record" that is available, as well as to hopefully help explain why I (currently) think the way I do on this ....

I'm mostly doing this because, So up until the time we do have some "defacto info" on this, when someone asks "what will become of the analog LP stations" after feb 2009? (I've seen that question asked here several times recently), I can provide them with better info .....

Now, when someone asks that, in addition to the info which is "on record" I am aware of, I can also say "but Foxeng thinks LP analogs are going to have to transistion to digital on Feb 17, 2009," and I can also perhaps provide them with a link to your posts here regarding your reasoning on that ....

I don't remember the exact dates of the filing windows for the LP CP's (prior to the setting of the Feb 17 date if I remember correctly and certainly the 2004 LP rules set those windows and conditions and so the current CP's being issued are based on that ruling not anything that happened after.

Not exactly. The LP DTV rules as set forth in the 2004 LP DTV R&O were for the most part the *first* rules put into place to allow LP's to go digital. They are the *only* rules for LP DTV I'm aware of that we have at present, and for the most part were necessary for the LP's to have a way to go digital. If I recall correctly, those rules didn't actually go "into effect" until sometime early in 2005, it was soon after that when FCC issued a public notice stating the LP's could begin filing flash cut apps(which for the most part they can pretty much do at any time, I believe).

They didn't set the filing window for digital companion channels in the 2004 LP DTV R&O, instead they said the filing windows for that would be set when the channel election procedure for full service stations had "progressed significantly" enough. That didn't occur until the april 2006 public notice I provided a link to earlier in this thread. Many of the applications for digital companion channels filed for in that 2006 filing window(The filing window was for June 19~30, 2006) are STILL being hashed out due to "mutual exclusivity" issues, and some of those apps may proceed to auction #85, which has not yet been scheduled.

Here's paragraph #133 from the 2004 LP DTV R&O regarding filing for on-channel LP digital conversions (flash cuts)

133. We will permit existing stations to file digital on-channel conversion applications at any time following the effective date of the rule changes in this proceeding and Office of Management and Budget approval of revisions to the application form necessary to accommodate digital requests. No commenter advocates that we delay opportunities to file such applications. Because such filings do not involve the use of new channels, we do not find it necessary to wait until certain issues surrounding the DTV transition of full-service broadcasters have been resolved. Existing low power broadcasters that wish to immediately convert to digital on their analog channel may do so or they may wait until a later time to determine if additional channels are available.

Follows is info on Filing window for digital companion channels from 2004 LP DTV R&O :

159. We agree that it is desirable to provide opportunities to obtain digital companion channels as soon as possible. We also believe, however, we should wait until there is additional clarity in the full-service television transition before accepting applications for new digital service, other than through on-channel conversion. After the DTV channel election process for full-service broadcasters has sufficiently progressed, it will become clearer what channels may be available for digital LPTV and TV translator stations. The majority of full-service broadcasters will be making their channel election during the first phase of the process scheduled to occur in December 2004. Subsequently, the Media Bureau will announce by Public Notice the window filing opportunity for digital companion channels and will, at a later date, establish parameters for the filing of additional applications.

Again, I provided The link to the public notice from April 2006 that opened the first filing window in Late June 2006 for digital LP companion channels in an earlier post.

And yes, I agree, if a LP gets a companion channel now, it makes little sense to built it out if they plan on going back to their analog channel. The FCC needs to address that and hopefully in the R&O they will. Now if they intend to stay on the digital channel, then get it built and then wait to shutdown the analog. That is my opinion for full power stations too in the same situation as well.

Given what FCC has done *SO* far regarding LP DTV, including regarding digital companion channels, a 2-17-09 shut off date for analog LP stations makes little sense, IMO.

True, it's an entirely different ball of wax, given they are a secondary service, AND given the DTV tuner mandate+that more and more OTA viewers now(or will soon have) DTV receivers -- but in regards to the "fairness" to LP operators as related to what FCC *HAS* done and said so far regarding LP analog shut off, and regarding common sense involving what *has* happened so far with LP DTV : A LP analog shut off date of Feb 17, 2009 === even if it comes out Tomorrow in an R&O would seem to be asking a little too much of the LP stations to require them to convert to digtial by Feb 17, 2009 .... And would seem somewhat to me like if in about 1999, Congress changed the Full service analog shut off to a hard date around early 2001, BEFORE most stations were even required to be on the air with digital .....

Could it happen? Well, sure, stranger things have happened I suppose .... so, I probably wouldn't "bet on it" at this point one way or the other .... ;)

dline

06-21-07, 01:35 PM

Well, I don't know how much this affects Florida, but today the FCC extended (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2724A1.pdf) TV Marti's authority to use Channel 13 for broadcasts to Cuba until January 24, 2008, as long as its operation doesn't interfere with domestic services. Obviously these broadcasts are jammed by Cuban authorities.

(No word on whether TV Marti is covered by the analog shutdown deadline. :D )

foxeng

06-21-07, 07:03 PM

(No word on whether TV Marti is covered by the analog shutdown deadline. :D )

I highly doubt it. :D

I suspect FCC "authority" for TV Marti is no more than a formality and it doesn't show on any FCC database that I have seen, unless it is hidden somehow and I have missed it.

jdspencer

07-08-07, 06:22 PM

Interesting thread (hadn't read it in awhile). It seems that our ch 34, currently broadcasting digitally on ch 4 will revert to ch 34. This means I might be able to get a smaller high VHF/UHF antenna (CM4228 maybe). Our other stations are using 7, 8, and 42. This brings up a question, well more of a clarification really. I guess digital chs 7 and 8 can be in the same area without interference.

SnellKrell

07-08-07, 06:41 PM

The FCC rule about adjacent channel allocations, as I understand it, is dependent upon the transmitting antennas for the two stations being in the same, or virtually the same, physical location.

jdspencer

07-09-07, 02:05 PM

These are located on the same hill.

MeowMeow

07-13-07, 02:46 AM

I have another odd question:

What will the net benefit be when all of these transmitters go off the air in Feb 2009? Will there be a noticeable drop in interference? There should be a noticeable drop in side-channel (at least when channels are no longer abutting).

I noticed in the FCC files that most of the transmitters will end up at approx half their current power. I'd think with fewer signals at generally lower power we ought to realize a noticeable benefit on many channels.

Am I right?

foxeng

07-13-07, 07:09 AM

You will have less interference, at least for a short time. If the FCC gets their way and opens up the white space to wireless, license free devices, like they want to do, the interference will be worse than what it is now.

jtbell

07-13-07, 10:31 AM

II noticed in the FCC files that most of the transmitters will end up at approx half their current power.

Are you saying that digital transmitters will generally cut their power after analog shutdown? I don't think I've ever read that before. Can you give a reference?

It is true that digital transmitters generally use less power than analog ones. In fact, I think digital usually uses even less than half the power. Around here, some stations broadcast at an ERP of 5000 kW analog and 1000 kW digital (both on UHF channels), with supposedly equivalent service areas.

After the analog transmitters shut down, there will be a lot less total RF energy feeding into people's receivers, which should reduce problems with intermodulation etc.

MeowMeow

07-13-07, 11:30 AM

Are you saying that digital transmitters will generally cut their power after analog shutdown? I don't think I've ever read that before. Can you give a reference?

I've seen a chart a few times showing the channels and their max powers. Can't dig it out of my history Time to dig... dig, dig... all day long... dig dig dig while I sing this song...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadcast_station_classes#Full-Service_Stations

Full-Service Stations

Full-Service Stations Suffix: -TV or -DT, -DS for temporary Digital permits ("special temporary authority"):

* VHF low (2-6): 100 kW video, 10 kW audio; 20 kW digital
* VHF high (7-13): 325 kW video, 32.5 kW audio; 65.0 kW digital
* UHF all (14-69): 5 MW video, 500 kW audio; 1MW digital

It's all through the FCC data. For example, in my area WWCP is going to switch back to their analog channel 8, at which time they will cut channel 8's power from approx 360 kw to 180 kw.

Nobody is going to be transmitting above 1000 kw. Which is a huge drop-off, especially for some of the upper UHF channels.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Mostly I suspect it will mean building more translators.

jtbell

07-14-07, 05:41 AM

MeowMeow

07-17-07, 11:18 PM

As I recall, ATSC receivers can have a lower raw signal-to-noise ratio at the antenna input, and still produce a usable picture, than is the case with NTSC receivers. People have posted technical details in this forum, but I don't have any links handy.

Therefore, digital transmitters don't need as much power as analog ones, in order to serve the same territory. If they all had similar power levels to analog transmitters, there would be serious co-channel and adjacent-channel interference problems in many areas.

My main hope is that we'll see a significant drop-off in interference. I had read an item about how during the Northeast Blackout in 2003 that a number of channels were more easily receivable because interfering channels a state away lost their power.

In my case, in PA, I'm hoping that when WATM shuts down its 23 analog signal that its 24 digital isn't as beaten up.

foxeng

07-18-07, 07:20 AM

In my case, in PA, I'm hoping that when WATM shuts down its 23 analog signal that its 24 digital isn't as beaten up.

N+1 stations always take a beating because the analog is the lower channel. NTSC uses the upper side of the carrier while ATSC uses the lower side of the carrier and the two signals interfere with each other pretty bad when the analog is the lower channel and ATSC is the upper channel in a first adjacent situation with lower power density levels. The FCC made a conscience attempt to NOT do that, but with limited spectrum in some areas, in some cases they didn't have a choice.

That interference should clear up nicely post transition.

MeowMeow

07-18-07, 08:56 AM

N+1 stations always take a beating because the analog is the lower channel. NTSC uses the upper side of the carrier while ATSC uses the lower side of the carrier and the two signals interfere with each other pretty bad when the analog is the lower channel and ATSC is the upper channel in a first adjacent situation with lower power density levels. The FCC made a conscience attempt to NOT do that, but with limited spectrum in some areas, in some cases they didn't have a choice.

That interference should clear up nicely post transition.

Groovy. Thanks for the confirmation.

KE0MI

07-19-07, 11:18 AM

It's all through the FCC data. For example, in my area WWCP is going to switch back to their analog channel 8, at which time they will cut channel 8's power from approx 360 kw to 180 kw.

This is an apples and oranges comparison. The 316 kW ERP on analog is peak power, the DTV signal is going to be measured as average power. There are approximations of a near 4 to 1 ratio peak/avg, but I'm no physicist.

PinkSplice

07-19-07, 10:03 PM

dr1394

07-21-07, 10:44 PM

That explains a great deal about the adjacent channel interference I've seen. Thank you.
Except that it's incorrect. Both NTSC and 8-VSB use the upper sideband.

http://www.broadcast.net/~sbe1/8vsb/8vsb.htm

Ron

foxeng

07-22-07, 08:01 AM

Except that it's incorrect. Both NTSC and 8-VSB use the upper sideband.

http://www.broadcast.net/~sbe1/8vsb/8vsb.htm

Ron

You better recheck your sources, doc.

dr1394

07-22-07, 09:05 PM

You better recheck your sources, doc.
Are you saying the link I provided is incorrect?

Ron

foxeng

07-23-07, 07:27 AM

No, the information is incorrect. NTSC does use upper side of a double sideband reduced carrier and ATSC uses the lower side of a double sideband reduced carrier. I deal with both everyday.

dr1394

07-23-07, 07:48 AM

No, the information is incorrect. NTSC does use upper side of a double sideband reduced carrier and ATSC uses the lower side of a double sideband reduced carrier. I deal with both everyday.
You're kidding right? You're saying that a paper written by a Harris Broadcast Systems employee and submitted to the Society of Broadcast Engineers is incorrect? How about some real evidence to prove your totally wrong point (beside "I work at TV station").

Ron

dr1394

07-23-07, 08:05 AM

Here's some spectrum analyzer plots taken by Bob Chase of KHWB.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=43178

On every DTV signal, it's obvious that the pilot is at the lower edge of the channel. Since the pilot is created by adding a DC offset to the 8 modulation levels, it is at the same frequency as the suppressed carrier. The plots clearly show that 8-vsb utilizes the upper sideband.

Ron

AntAltMike

07-25-07, 09:22 AM

I don't see how the graphs or any of the explanations above show that an 8VSB broadcast signal is more susceptible to degradation from an analog channel below it rather than from one above it. No appreciable signal from the adjacent NTSC transmitter above or below spills into the plot of the subject 8VSB transmission.

FWIW, I'm in a market with five digital (edit)"+1s" (14A/15D, 26A/27D, 45A/46D. 50A/51D, 56A/57D). I don't have any digital (edit)"-1s" and have never had to deal with any. I have always considered myself lucky to be in such a situation because I can substantially attenuate the strong, lower adjacent NTSC visual carrier with inexpensive bandpass filters (BPF-UHF used to cost under $20 each before they were discontinued), since it is over 5Mhz below the upper adjacent 8VSB pilot, whereas I have read that other antenna installers whose setups were afflicted by strong upper adjacent NTSC carrier have had to use more expensive ($200), Blonder Tongue MWT narrow notch traps, even at VHF frequencies, and I don't know if they are narrow enough to be useful at UHF frequencies.

I have read that some of the consumer, 8VSB tuners use varactor controlled bandpass filters varying in width from ten to 20dB so if that is correct, they may have some an appreciable mitigating effect on lower adjacent NTSC visual carriers (which is where most of the NTSC's RF power is), but negligible effect on upper adjacent visual carriers. I have observed previously that consumer satellite L-band tuners have more bandpass filtering than do the commercial satellite receivers. I'm sure that this is deliberate, to avoid hamstringing a technician who might not want the L-band input filtered in a fixed manner when he can effect what he considers to be optimal filtering externally. I therefore suspect that commercial 8VSB tuners might not have the same bandpass input filtering that consumer-grade 8VSB tuners have.

afiggatt

07-25-07, 04:24 PM

BTW, comments and letters are still coming to the FCC under proceeding 87-268, some of them are interesting.

Alamo Public Telecommunications Council, licensee of KLRN of San Antonio, TX, objects to Corridor's, owner of KCWX, request to switch it's final digital channel from VHF 5 to 8 with comments on who says low VHF is bad for digital broadcasting? See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519538075.

KTBC 7 in Austin, TX, also objects to Corridor KCWX's request to move to VHF 8 writing hey we spent a lot of money on going digital and will be switching to VHF 7; Corridor has been avoiding building a digital facility for nearly a decade so why should be allowed to interfere with KTBC-DT? See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519560128. So where will KCWX-DT end up? Stay tuned...

If anyone wants to try to figure out the channel swapping here, KALO of Honolulu wants to swap with another station: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519559325. What I don't get is why there would be so much trouble getting digital channel assignments in Hawaii.

Also, the FCC has started to take comments on the third DTV periodic review under proceeding 07-91. Only a few documents show up so far at the FCC site under 07-91. At this rate, the final digital channel assignments for full power stations are not going to come out until 2008.

Trip in VA

07-25-07, 11:22 PM

BTW, comments and letters are still coming to the FCC under proceeding 87-268, some of them are interesting.

Alamo Public Telecommunications Council, licensee of KLRN of San Antonio, TX, objects to Corridor's, owner of KCWX, request to switch it's final digital channel from VHF 5 to 8 with comments on who says low VHF is bad for digital broadcasting? See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519538075.

KTBC 7 in Austin, TX, also objects to Corridor KCWX's request to move to VHF 8 writing hey we spent a lot of money on going digital and will be switching to VHF 7; Corridor has been avoiding building a digital facility for nearly a decade so why should be allowed to interfere with KTBC-DT? See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519560128. So where will KCWX-DT end up? Stay tuned...

I hate that reasoning. If anyone were to check the records, they'd find that KCWX did not avoid building a facility; in fact they sought to have a digital assigned to them (albeit on channel 63) and had it denied. That's more than most other stations can say.

They can argue about the other stuff all they want, but that really seems like grasping at straws, even if their other reasoning is sound.

I also am annoyed by how KLRN just dismisses all of low-VHFs interference and reception problems, despite the fact that they are documented and exist just about anywhere a digital low-VHF operates. I, myself, live in a very rural area and despite having near 100% signal strength for all the UHFs in my market, with a dedicated VHF antenna and amp I cannot decode my local PBS, a low-VHF on channel 3, 90% of the time. With the antenna pointed directly at them.

- Trip

dr1394

07-26-07, 12:25 AM

AntAltMike

07-26-07, 01:16 AM

FWIW, I'm in a market with five "+1s" (14A/15D, 26A/27D, 45A/46D. 50A/51D, 56A/57D).

Here in the SF Bay Area, we have mostly "-1s". 11A/12D, 26A/27D, 32A/33D. 38A/39D, 44A/45D and 48A/49D.

We seem to be using the "+1" terminology from different perspectives. I have been using the term "+1 assignment" to refer to digital assignments that are one channel above the corresponding analog assignments. You are using "+1" in identifying a source of analog interference that is one channel above the digital.

I probably was more likely to view the interference situation from the perspective of its affect on the analog channel rather than vice versa because that is what I had to deal with as a master antenna system serviceperson who maintains analog headends. If the preponderance of uses of the term "+1" in related FCC documents is of the relationship of an interfering channel to the subject digital channel, rather than of the relationship between the transition channel assignment and the original analog assignment, then I may wind up confusing matters by using it in a manner that is inconsistent with its most prevalent use.

My cerebral survey of digital transition assignments tallys that large markets tend to get as many assigned, contemporaneously transmitted digital channels that are one channel above the original analog channel as are possible. I had assumed that having a digital and analog pairing with the analog below and the digital above was more benign and as such, it made economic sense to favor the larger markets with such temporary relationships, but again, because I don't have a single "digital lower/analog higher" pair in my market, I can't support that speculation with any experiences I have had in daling with such interference.

HIPAR

07-27-07, 11:11 AM

Here's an analysis concerning the possibility of interference from 'white space' devices.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0072/t.7434.html

The FCC laboratory has been testing prototype devices and will release a report soon.

Where will these devices be practical? In the population dense metro areas, there will not be very much white space. In the rural areas they may be practical but the potential for interference is greater there. I 'm guessing a nearby low power white space device will easily 'out shout' a TV station 40 miles distant.

--- CHAS

dr1394

07-28-07, 06:35 AM

I like his solution (in the last paragraph):

"Rather than sandwich UD and DTV signals into the remaining broadcast spectrum (Channels 2–51 after Feb. 17, 2009) I favor some partitioning of spectrum, and to do that would mean repacking DTV channel allotments. This drastic step may be the only way to save terrestrial broadcasting from hopeless interference from unlicensed devices spread across the broadcast spectrum and across the coverage area of DTV stations. This is not a matter of if, but when repacking must be done, I believe."

Ron

mdodge

07-29-07, 09:19 AM

This is an apples and oranges comparison. The 316 kW ERP on analog is peak power, the DTV signal is going to be measured as average power. There are approximations of a near 4 to 1 ratio peak/avg, but I'm no physicist.

KEOMI is correct. NTSC power, as measured at the output of the transmitter, is PEAK power measured at tip of horizontal sync. It is measured with no video content, no chroma and no set-up (aural is measured separately). ATSC is AVERAGE power measured across the channel bandwidth. Video content has no bearing because when looking at the signal on a spectrum analyzer, there is no difference between "video" and "noise".

FoxEng - Re-read your theory.

"A simple inspection of Figure 5 reveals the high degree of redundancy in our double sideband AM spectrum. The various sidelobes are simply scaled copies of the center spectrum, and the entire lower sideband is a mirror image of the upper sideband. This allows us to discard almost the entire lower sideband and all of the sidelobes in the upper sideband. The remaining signal (upper half of the center spectrum) can be further cut in half by virtue of the Nyquist Theory, which states that only a 1/2 frequency bandwidth is required to transmit a digital signal at a given sampling rate." Dave Sparano - Harris

I worked with Dave when he was at Thales (now back at Harris) and he is one smart cookie. :D

Nitewatchman

07-29-07, 04:18 PM

I like his solution (in the last paragraph) ....

"Rather than sandwich UD and DTV signals into the remaining broadcast spectrum (Channels 2–51 after Feb. 17, 2009) I favor some partitioning of spectrum, and to do that would mean repacking DTV channel allotments. This drastic step may be the only way to save terrestrial broadcasting from hopeless interference from unlicensed devices spread across the broadcast spectrum and across the coverage area of DTV stations. This is not a matter of if, but when repacking must be done, I believe."

Ron

Yes, I agree .... If they do "wise up" on this, I wonder how much bandwidth would be needed/used by the UWD's ? Would 4 or 5 channels be enough, including for future "demand"?

I would rather have the UD's confined to say, ch 2-6, but I'm guessing they'd probably want to use UHF for smaller antennas --- Perhaps repacking broadcast DTV into something like ch 2-46 might perhaps be along the right lines, or, I wonder would they need/want more room for the UWD's ....

Mister B

07-30-07, 10:32 AM

HIPAR

07-30-07, 11:33 AM

Yes, I agree .... If they do "wise up" on this, I wonder how much bandwidth would be needed/used by the UWD's ? Would 4 or 5 channels be enough, including for future "demand"?

It seems that after multiple channel election rounds, geographical areas remain where the core channels will not allow sufficient spectrum for ideal DTV operations. The well known WPVI situation in the Philadelphia metro area is an good example. If additional channels are reallocated, that would complicate licensing for new TV stations after the FCC lifts its freeze on applications.

--- CHAS

AntAltMike

07-30-07, 11:45 AM

Here in El Paso KFOX's analog channel is 14 and digital is on 15. The analog channel is filled with short horizonal lines of static. After some big storms last summer it cleared up and I went to a neighbor's to confirm my suspicion that the digital signal was off the air. As soon as digital 15 came back on the static resumed. Oddly, the static is not as bad on older TV's, I suppose they put in better OTA tuners back then...

The Spanish channel KINT is just the opposite situation with the digital signal on 25 and analog on 26 and shows no problems. I will just have to wait until I can convert to HD before 2009.

But difference in your reception has to do with the relative transmitter power of the adjacent transmitters. KFOX analog channel 14 is broadcasting at a 420 MW, alongside its adjacent channel 15, which is at 350MW now and will be increased to 1,000.

KINT's analog channel 26 is at a more robust 2,240MW, whereas its adjacent analog tramsmitter is still on its temporary authority to broadcast at a measly 1.8MW. As soon as it goes up to its licensed power of 1,000 MW, it will wreak havoc on the adjacent analog channel 26.

Nitewatchman

07-30-07, 05:12 PM

It seems that after multiple channel election rounds, geographical areas remain where the core channels will not allow sufficient spectrum for ideal DTV operations. The well known WPVI situation in the Philadelphia metro area is an good example. If additional channels are reallocated, that would complicate licensing for new TV stations after the FCC lifts its freeze on applications.

--- CHAS

I suspect UWD's sharing spectrum with Broadcast DTV stations will be much, much less than ideal for DTV operations, nationwide.....

Update: Oh, BTW, from what I recall from the FCC rulemaking at the time, at one point the DTV core spectrum WAS going to be ch 7-51, and all the stations were going to fit there post-transistion.

But, in 1998, after several parties with interest(broadcasters, mostly) stated their case regarding adding 2-6 into the core, FCC decided to allow it. I don't have the link handy currently, but I recall a section of an R&O on this issue where FCC discussed changing the core to ch 2-46 given the "extra" 2-6 being added in would allow for more than enough room(supposedly anyway), but because of the timing involved concerning when 2-6 was added to the core+the work that at that time had already progressed regarding the DTV table of allotments for during the transistion --- basically, if I recall, it was for that reason they stated they decided to just add 2-6 to the core rather than change the core channels from 7-51 to ch 2-46.

HIPAR

07-30-07, 08:38 PM

Much of the interference being discussed can be mitigated by good receiver design:

a) Provide adequate front end selectivity
b) Reduce front end gain to the minimum required to establish the lowest noise figure
c) Maintain high dynamic range in the first mixer
d) Provide IF selectivity close to the mixer and lump the IF gain after it
e) Employ a double conversion scheme if required to eliminate response on a image frequency

That receiver will inordinately increase the cost of a TV set so manufacturers will not devote the necessary resources; they know 90% of the sets will be connected to satellite or cable and will never see an antenna.

The best over-the-air system would be a component approach consisting of the monitor and an optional high quality receiver add-on for the relative few viewers who need it.

From a marketing viewpoint, I must be wrong because there isn't too much like that in the stores.

--- CHAS

kb7oeb

07-31-07, 01:18 AM

You can watch the digital feed without going HD, DVD burners with digital tuners can be a less expensive way.

Larry Kenney

07-31-07, 04:05 AM

mdodge

07-31-07, 12:58 PM

Win-TV has a small digital and analog tuner that will plug into the USB port of a computer. They're on sale at Radio Shack right now for $59.95 after rebate. It's a very inexpensive way to get a digital tuner.

I got one and it works very well. The digital receiver isn't as sensitive as my Dish DVR, but it's quite adaquate.

Larry
SF

There is a thread on this forum on the AutumnWave USB HDTV-GT (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=695589). It's more expensive but is an excellent receiver. I use it almost every day along with TSReader at our various DTV stations. Does NTSC/DTV OTA and Quam (unencrypted). And, if you read the thread, you will see that it has the best Customer Service in the business.

Nitewatchman

07-31-07, 04:18 PM

... there isn't too much like that in the stores.....

Well, I don't ever expect to see DTV receivers available to consumers which are designed and built more along the lines of say, my Drake 2A(triple conversion HF receiver BTW) or Drake TR7 ...... It's never happened with consumer NTSC equipment AFAIK, either ...

Anyhow, Charles Rhodes has written several articles on these issues, here is another :

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0072/t.6906.html

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

Personally, I've yet to see any evidence that suggests UWD's will properly-* protect DTV operations ON channel, for say, those receiving their Only TV signals from fringe areas beyond stations predicted coverage areas, let alone involving these issues in the Rhodes article with single conversion superhet receivers. Or for that matter any "official" disucssion of any importantance of protecting those viewers from interference from unlicensed devices, should they be allowed to share the broadcast spectrum.

* - of course "properly" by my definition doesn't allow much leeway concerning adding additional "noise" to the broadcast bands - I don't want these things on the TV bands any more than I would want them on say, 20 meter HF band, or any more than I want BPL, which is of course, not at all ....

One thing I think Is for sure, once the UWD's get "out there", there will be no bringing them back ..... Even if someday, for instance, it is decided to "repurpose" the broadcast spectrum+use it(i.e. "auction it off") for something else other than OTA DTV broadcasting, well, those UWD's will still be there using the spectrum, just like my 25 year old garage door opener .....

HIPAR

07-31-07, 10:02 PM

Those (like us) who are interested in these kinds of things know the entire spectrum, even millimeter wave, is becoming 'super packed'. Now channels have been split, spectrum has been reallocated. There are so many transmitters but FCC enforcement is practically non existent.

Twenty five years ago, simpler equipment almost always worked because it wasn't being stressed and mostly everything employed robust AM or FM modulation.

Today, it's so complicated especially for DTV. An 8VSB waveform is quite fragile with all of its redundant spectral components having been filtered away... 19 megabits in a 6Mhz channel!

Nyquist and Shannon would be amazed. :eek:

BTW Jeff, I have a Drake TR7.

--- CHAS

Nitewatchman

08-01-07, 03:23 PM

Well, I guess I have had to replace a few lamps(for the meter/etc) in the TR7 over the years, otherwise ...... <g> ....

----------

Anyhow, this is no surprise :

Remote Sensing Devices Fail FCC White Space Test (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6464540.html?rssid=193)

The full info from the FCC report can currently be downloaded/found under 7/31 date with the heading " FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Announces the Release of Reports of Initial Measurements on TV White Space Devices ", in the "headlines" section here:

www.fcc.gov

habscolts

08-02-07, 12:20 AM

Can anyone post a link to the post transition channel allotments? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

afiggatt

08-02-07, 10:41 AM

Can anyone post a link to the post transition channel allotments? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

go to http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/. Scroll down to the May 23, 2006 release "Tentative Digital Channel Designations for Stations Participating in the First and Second Rounds of the DTV Channel Election Process." The Excel link will provide the combined 1st and 2nd round list in spreadsheet format. The short 3rd round list was released on August 29, 2006. These lists are not complete, as as a few stations are not on them and some have asked for a different final digital channel (see top of this thread). When the FCC will release a final list for all full power stations is not known. A complete list for all the low power and Class A would also be useful for those deciding on what antenna they need to put up. Maybe they will release that before February, 2009.

sebenste

08-06-07, 10:01 PM

The FCC has done it! They have come out with their final DTV channel list. OK, they do note that there might be a last minute change or two (see below), but for all intents and purposes, THIS IS IT!

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv

See the first entry, dated today.

Among the notables locally in the Chicago/Rockford market:

THE CURSE IS OVER! WBBM-DT granted channel 12 at 3.2 kw. Probably going to much higher than that after analog shudtown. Whoo hoo!

Also, WREX-DT's request to go to 12 kw has been granted, so they will go out 60 miles in many directions in 2009.

OK. I need help to sort all this out...and there will be a few more changes as the change requests are extended to AUGUST 15. Ya got 1 week!!!

Larry Kenney

08-07-07, 04:20 AM

I found the FCC announcement, but no list. Where did you find the list of station assignments?

Larry
SF

dr1394

08-07-07, 05:39 AM

I found the FCC announcement, but no list. Where did you find the list of station assignments?

Larry
SF
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A2.pdf

No changes for the SF Bay Area.

Here's the entire text:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A1.pdf

Ron

Larry Kenney

08-07-07, 03:44 PM

Thanks for the links.

I've done a comparison of the final assignments from the FCC with the list I have for the San Francisco Bay Area (SF-Oakland-San Jose-Salinas-Monterey-Sacramento). As Ron says, there are no channel changes for this area, but I did have to update a few power and HAAT figures. The information is now up to date at: http://www.choisser.com/sfonair.html

You'll find the station list in numerical order by the new channel assignment at the bottom of the page. Also included is the latest information I have on the low power assignments.

Across the entire country, how many stations will be in the channel 2 to 6 segment?
Channel 2 - 7
Channel 3 - 7
Channel 4 - 2
Channel 5 - 13
Channel 6 - 8
Total = 37

Larry
SF

Trip in VA

08-07-07, 07:03 PM

Don't forget that the FCC is seeking comments regarding a request from WUOA-23 in Tuscaloosa, AL. That station requests to move to channel 6.

- Trip

PA_MainyYak

08-07-07, 08:05 PM

Well, the FCC appears to have solved the debate between WPCW and a low power TV operation that opposed WPCW's use of channel 49. The FCC wants WPCW to use channel 11 which will become vacant after analog shutoff.
What I do not see is any provision for WPCW to get approval for an interim channel. It appears to me WPCW will remain analog only until 2009. Does anybody read the FCC's decision differently (starts at p. 57 of the report)?

Trip in VA

08-07-07, 08:34 PM

I imagine the FCC would allow WPCW to stay analog-only. I mean, they haven't built anything out by now; why would the FCC make them build something just to shut it off in a year and a half? Or, more likely, by the time it's done, in 6 months time?

- Trip

mgpt6

08-07-07, 09:47 PM

Only 37 channels on Lo-VHF, maybe FCC can move them to Hi VHF and UHF after 2009. Would be nice to get Ch.6 for expanded FM radio.

Tony Nx

08-07-07, 09:50 PM

The one thing that is true from that article is that post transition, there will be no need for transmitters in the US market and you will be seeing many of the transmitter manufactures either go out of business or have to sell overseas harder to stay in business for the next 5 to 10 years when the first generation DTV transmitters from the late 90's come up for replacement.

I suspect few stations will ever replace their DTV transmitters. By the time the gear is old enough, there will be so few viewers using over-the-air that they will just keep the old equipment loping along.

Right now many retailers are training their sales staffs to tell customers that "you can't get digital TV without cable or satellite", that "There will be no over-the-air reception at all after February 2009", that "Antennas don't work for HDTV"

Apartment owers get a fee for having cable or satellite distribution in their buldings & don't have to pay to maintain the system. Not so with master O-T-A antenna syatems. I have never seen a well maintained MATV system.

The CEA members are lobbying hard to be allowed all over the TV spectrum with low power un-licensed devices. When most of your neighbors and nearby businesses are running this new-age RF stuff the interference will be untenable.

I think it is a sad situation.

AntAltMike

08-07-07, 11:14 PM

I suspect few stations will ever replace their DTV transmitters. By the time the gear is old enough, there will be so few viewers using over-the-air that they will just keep the old equipment loping along.

I think it is a sad situation.

It used to be that when there was a fire, any poor person could run to the nearest fire alarm box and pull the lever. Now, only the people with enough money for a telephone can contact the fire department directly. I think we're better off.

foxeng

08-08-07, 07:38 AM

I suspect few stations will ever replace their DTV transmitters. By the time the gear is old enough, there will be so few viewers using over-the-air that they will just keep the old equipment loping along.

Some stations on the air since 1998 have already started replacing their digital transmitters. Nationwide there has been documented resurgence of OTA antenna sales and as has been posted by many people here in AVSForum, the media is reporting same with the upcoming transition date now set. Will OTA surpass MSOs? No, but digital is showing people you CAN get as good if not better signals OTA than via a MSO. !n your sig you say "Keep Amtrak Alive!" At this point, OTA digital TV has a better chance of surviving than Amtrak.

sidebar - Let a guy go on vacation and this thread explodes with posts!

GeorgeLV

08-08-07, 01:04 PM

Nitewatchman

08-08-07, 02:28 PM

Nationwide there has been documented resurgence of OTA antenna sales

Along those lines, I was driving a different route than usual earlier this afternoon which I haven't "visited" in a while. So, remembering Tony's post+my sometime pasttime of looking for antennas on peoples roofs while driving around and sitting at stoplights/etc --- I saw several new ones(that are probably new in the past 6 months), small~medium sized VHF/UHF combos --- specifically looked a lot like RS VU90's/120's (think antennacraft makes those, not sure) or CM advantage line, and they all appeared to be aimed fairly "properly" at Dayton antenna farm (which is/will be all UHF digital for Full service stations BTW) ....

I thought, well at least that seems to be a good sign, and this was in town, in areas served by cable .. It's about the 2nd "surge" in new antennas on roofs in my area I've seen in the last 10 years, the last time being around 2001~2002 ...

dline

08-08-07, 05:01 PM

Along those lines, I was driving a different route than usual earlier this afternoon which I haven't "visited" in a while. So, remembering Tony's post+my sometime pasttime of looking for antennas on peoples roofs while driving around and sitting at stoplights/etc --- I saw several new ones(that are probably new in the past 6 months), small~medium sized VHF/UHF combos --- specifically looked a lot like RS VU90's/120's (think antennacraft makes those, not sure) or CM advantage line, and they all appeared to be aimed fairly "properly" at Dayton antenna farm (which is/will be all UHF digital for Full service stations BTW) ....

I thought, well at least that seems to be a good sign, and this was in town, in areas served by cable .. It's about the 2nd "surge" in new antennas on roofs in my area I've seen in the last 10 years, the last time being around 2001~2002 ...That's interesting ... I find myself looking at roofs while driving myself!

In my case it's because I live in one market and my hometown is in another one and I'm kind of curious whose antennas are pointed where ... but they are out there, and quite a few appear to be of fairly recent vintage.

As a matter of fact, I was listening to a western Illinois radio station late last year while on vacation, and they had a story about how well Winegard was doing thanks in part to this digital transition.

mglass1646

08-08-07, 10:05 PM

I have looked at roof top antennas since I was a kid. I too have seen some new ones around Indianapolis, where most people got by with rabbit ears. We have two antenna farms. One is north northwest and the other directly south, but in the next county. I saw one new UHF yagi aiming east toward Dayton/Cincinnati. Confused or wanting a change? I can only get those stations after dark.

I have been telling everyone that asks me about OTA antennas to just get a 4 or 8 bay UHF unit. Here in Indianapolis we will not have any low band after shutoff and the bowtie antennas work ok for local high band.

It will be an interesting time for TV DX. Brave new world!

jtbell

08-09-07, 02:24 AM

Oh bleep. It looks like WMYT in Charlotte didn't get its wish to change its final digital channel from 39 to 46. Therefore I will have both of the following stations on channel 39:

WMYT Charlotte, distance 74 miles, azimuth 34 degrees, ERP 200 kW
WKTC Sumter SC (Columbia), 68 miles, 111 degrees, 500 kW

Right now I have adequate reception on WMYT in the evening, and a bit spotty during the day. WKTC is now on very low power from a more distant location, so it's not a factor for me at all. I wonder how reception is going to work out? Hopefully a good directional antenna like the 91XG that I plan to install can sort them out, with an angular separation of 77 degrees.

I'll also have the following pair on channel 47:

WJZY Charlotte, 74 miles, 34 degrees, 1000 kW
WZRB Columbia, 59 miles, 120 degrees, 50 kW (currently has no digital channel at all)

[added later] On searching through the complete report for "WMYT" I found the rationale for denying the channel change request: unacceptable adjacent-channel interference with WYCW (ch 45) in Asheville.

Falcon_77

08-10-07, 03:11 PM

Across the entire country, how many stations will be in the channel 2 to 6 segment?
Channel 2 - 7
Channel 3 - 7
Channel 4 - 2
Channel 5 - 13
Channel 6 - 8
Total = 37

Larry
SF

The new breakdown for all 3 bands comes out to:

VHF-LO: 37 (2%)
VHF-HI: 450 (25%)
UHF: 1324 (73%)

With stats like these, it seems like a waste to even continue to allocate TV to VHF-LO. Is this range not useful for anything else? I would have rather kept 5 extra UHF channels to make up for the loss of this range.

I also wasn't pleased to discover unlicensed devices using "unused" TV frequencies. Isn't losing 52-69 bad enough?

Perhaps the best I can hope for is the relegation of VHF-LO to specialty antennas.? At least I can get good enough VHF-HI reception on my UHF antennas.

Maybe if DTV is renamed "wireless TV" it will spur more interest. People seem to be so enamored of wireless devices... and yet they ignore OTA. Around here, I can drive for miles and not see a single antenna. Sometimes, I've thought about putting one outside just to make people aware of it.

It doesn't help when stores like CostCo say that one needs to call their cable or satellite company to upgrade their service to get HD.

I hope that the analog shut-off will at least open some eyes...

foxeng

08-10-07, 04:20 PM

With stats like these, it seems like a waste to even continue to allocate TV to VHF-LO.

Did you count the several thousand LP and translator TV stations? The list the FCC put out only counts for the full power TV stations.

Falcon_77

08-10-07, 08:32 PM

Did you count the several thousand LP and translator TV stations? The list the FCC put out only counts for the full power TV stations.

If a list is available including these, I would be interested in viewing it. Are they going to publish a list of post-transition digital TX, LP an CA, etc. stations or will that be coming much later?

For the moment, I may dive into the FCC database to determine the current (Licensed) count, by channel, including these.

foxeng

08-11-07, 08:18 AM

If a list is available including these, I would be interested in viewing it. Are they going to publish a list of post-transition digital TX, LP an CA, etc. stations or will that be coming much later?

For the moment, I may dive into the FCC database to determine the current (Licensed) count, by channel, including these.

The FCC couldn't create a LP, translator table until the full power stations were finalized. I suspect we will see one in the next 6 to 9 months if the FCC hopes to stay on track for Feb 17, 2009.

Falcon_77

08-13-07, 03:18 PM

The new breakdown for all 3 bands comes out to:
VHF-LO: 37 (2%)
VHF-HI: 450 (25%)
UHF: 1324 (73%)

For comparative purposes, I analyzed the number of transmitters by channel for all currently licensed stations. This includes all licensed records returned by the FCC database query tool as of yesterday, e.g. TV, TX, DT, CA, etc.

VHF-LO: 1104 (10.6%)
VHF-HI: 2133 (20.5%)
UHF: 7180 (68.9%)

In the VHF bands, I found a large number of Alaskan Translator stations. I would expect quite a few, but was still surprised by the number:

VHF-LO: 156 (80 on channel 4)
VHF-HI: 306 (120 on channel 9)

Alaska has some UHF Translators as well, but they are far fewer in number and seemed to be closer to Anchorage or Fairbanks.

In general, the all licensed station count tilts more to UHF than the current full power (analog only) count. For analog full power stations listed on the DTV final list, it comes out to:

VHF-LO: 16.9%
VHF-HI: 23.6%
UHF: 59.5%

Are translator stations elected as well or are they assigned by the FCC? I will be curious to review this again when they are finalized as well.

Jaybird100

08-20-07, 08:37 AM

As a newbie to this thread, I think the FCC blew the best opportunity they had to move all television broadcasting in the US to UHF. It would have made sense, seeing as how many countries in Europe have already done so, and with great success.

foxeng

08-20-07, 11:59 AM

milehighmike

08-20-07, 02:21 PM

foxeng

08-20-07, 05:25 PM

I disagree. The FCC kept VHF 2-13, 12 channels total, and gave up UHF 52-69, 18 channels. The FCC could have easily given up VHF and UHF 64-69 and kept UHF 52-63 for the same number of channels available. I think the issue was economic - folks interested in the high UHF frequencies (auction $) - versus number of channels available. Cell phone providers don't want their 0.1 watt traveling 10 miles on VHF channel 2.

The FCC went through 3 rounds of channels from 1995 through 1997 because in the first round my stations channel was to have been 54. The next two rounds we got 35 and 35 respectfully. Initially the channels were to have been 14-69, then 7-51, then finally 2-51. There was a conscience effort to have all TV on UHF.

milehighmike

08-20-07, 09:06 PM

So why did the effort to keep everything on UHF fail? There has to be a reason other than there weren't enough channels available, which is what you insinuated in post 215.

foxeng

08-20-07, 10:54 PM

So why did the effort to keep everything on UHF fail? There has to be a reason other than there weren't enough channels available, which is what you insinuated in post 215.

And why not? The FCC's purpose was to give stations as close as practical to digital coverage as they enjoyed in analog. For the number of stations verses spectrum verses coverage areas, there wasn't enough channels. Even now, with channels 2-51, some stations didn't get anything close to their analog coverages in digital and these stations are mostly UHFs. Many of the VHF high analogs can't go back to their analog VHF high channels because of interference standards in digital even though they fit in the analog world and we have found out that VHF low is not the place to be and there are some station don't have a choice but to be on VHF low, WPVI in Phili comes to mind being stuck on channel 6 and can't get off of it post transition after trying very hard to get off channel 6. No spectrum available. It boils down to simple logistics.

milehighmike

08-21-07, 04:27 AM

I'm sorry to be argumentative, but your posts make no common sense. The FCC gave away 18 channels on UHF to keep 12 channels on VHF. That's why WPVI is saddled with channel 6 instead of a channel in the 52-69 range. The net loss of 6 channels is why there is no spectrum available. That's the "simple logistics", as you put it.

For the number of stations verses spectrum verses coverage areas, there wasn't enough channels.

Well, if you and I both know that your statement is correct, why did the FCC give away a net of 6 channels?

The government wanted the $ from the auction of UHF channels 52-69. That's why there isn't enough spectrum. Period.

As an aside, why did the FCC think that the number of channels had to be reduced by eliminating channels 52-69? The number of TV stations hasn't been reduced (except for the few that can't afford to go digital and will go dark on 2-17-09). Reducing the spectrum without a corresponding reduction in TV stations creates chaos. Again, that's why WPVI is on digital channel 6. This precipitates the coverage problems via co-channel interference and the 1 mW limit on ERP.

foxeng

08-21-07, 08:01 AM

I'm sorry to be argumentative, but your posts make no common sense.

You are not listening. First some history.

In 1994/5 when the FCC came up with their first channel assignments, the thought was to put ever station in UHF to level the playing field to reduce one station having a coverage advantage over another one. The power levels for these stations were higher than what they are now also to help make the coverages matched as much as possible. They couldn't get them to fit with all stations retaining their analog coverages so they had to reduce coverages. At that time there was no thought of "auctions" to make additional money. Stations were given an opportunity to comment on the selections made. Many stations complained that the loss of coverage area wasn't acceptable. Many stations on analog VHF low channels lost around 50% of their coverage with the channel packing as it was set up. So the FCC came out with a revised channel packing that extended the channels from 7-69. They were also able to reduce power levels after more research showed you didn't need the extra power and they loosened the spacing requirements. They again opened it up and again some stations with VHF analog allocations complained that they still lost too much coverage. The FCC again restacked the channels but we are now in 1996 and the Clinton Administration decided with the repacking of TV channels, some of the spectrum could be auctioned off to help reduce the budget deficit and told the FCC to open additional spectrum up by cutting the TV channels. (Telecommunications Act of 1996) In order to meet that request, the channels were repacked in 2-51 with more loosening of coverage by putting stations in VHF Low and this time told stations what they got is what they got and then began the transition with. Even after that list was approved, in 1999 the FCC tightened bandwidth specs to pack even more stations in as technology improved and ther are still stations currently on air with digital coverages that do not match their analog because there is no room. All of this was before it was discovered that 2-6 were not desirable digital channels. That came along in 2000 and 2001 after stations began to come on the air and many people wanting to vacate 2-6.

As an aside, why did the FCC think that the number of channels had to be reduced by eliminating channels 52-69?

I answered that above. They were told to reduce the channels.

I know all of this because I watched it develop first hand and was in many discussions with other engineers on what this or that meant to not only our respective stations but our industry. There was much hand wringing that was going on in those days, particularly when the whole ATSC COFDM debate started around the same time and the questions started to fly about did the US pick the correct system. The debates in the industry that happened made the AVS COFDM debates look like a picnic. Friendships were severed over that one.

As you can see you were not the first one to think of this.

milehighmike

08-21-07, 01:17 PM

foxeng

08-21-07, 01:49 PM

foxeng,

Thanks for the history lesson. I do have one last question. How was it determined that channels 52-69 would be eliminated? The question relates to pure numbers. In other words, why weren't channels 59-69 eliminated instead? Was this arbratrary, determined by the number of stations in existence at the time, etc.?

I am not sure but I suspect it had to do with lobbying by the wireless industry and the computer industry. Early on in the DTV saga, MicroSoft was really trying to steer things more in the computer realm having just launched WebTV and away from broadcasting and the Qualcomm's jumped on the bandwagon as well pushing their wireless agenda. In the end MicroSoft gave up and moved on to other things and the wireless companies won the spectrum, until 9/11 when it was further broken off into public service and wireless.

It has been a bumpy road to get to where we are now.

Nitewatchman

08-21-07, 07:51 PM

Those interested in the history "What channels were decided to be in the core DTV channels(ch 2-51) and why" will probably also want to read :

Section C "Spectrum for DTV", paragraph 34~84 in FCC's 6th Report and Order from the "DTV proceeding" (87-268) which was adopted by FCC in April 1997 and can be downloaded in several file formats from this page :

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1997/fcc97115.html

As well as Section B. "Selection of The Core Spectrum", Paragraphs 33~45 of FCC "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF THE SIXTH REPORT AND ORDER", which can be downloaded in several file formats from this page :

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1998/fcc98024.html

Here's paragraph 33 and 41~44 from the last document, which was adopted by FCC in early 1998, which I believe was the "last word" on this issue from FCC(at least so far) ...

B. Selection of the DTV Core Spectrum

33. As noted in the Sixth Report and Order, one of our principal concerns in this proceeding is to provide broadcasters with the best possible spectrum for DTV service. In the Sixth Further Notice, we stated that a core region between channels 7-51 may be the most appropriate location for DTV broadcasting; that this spectrum would be sufficient to accommodate all existing broadcasters; and that it would provide additional DTV channels for new entrants after the conversion to digital service. We noted that the lower VHF channels 2-6 are subject to technical penalties, including higher ambient noise levels and concerns of possible interference to and from FM radio service. We did, however, recognize that these channels offer unique characteristics for broadcasting, particularly with regard to propagation. In the Sixth Report and Order, we recognized that a number of commenting parties strongly believed that DTV signals can perform well in the presence of noise and that the lower VHF channels 2-6, with their desirable propagation characteristics, should be made part of the DTV core spectrum. However, other parties agreed with our initial assessment that these channels may not be appropriate for TV use. We therefore concluded that the best approach was to develop the DTV Table based on use of channels 2-51, and modified our allotment software to attempt to locate all DTV channels within this portion of the spectrum. We stated that if channels 2-6 prove acceptable for DTV use, we will consider retaining these channels for DTV use and adjusting the core spectrum to encompass channels 2-46, rather than channels 7-51......

[note paragraphs 34~40 removed as "basically" it is discussion explaining the pros and cons + who wants 2-6 in and who doesn't and why or the core to be 2-46 or not, or who wants 2-51 or doesn't and why, blah blah blah, /etc/etc/etc ]

................ 41. Decision. We recognize that postponing a decision on the low-VHF channels has raised uncertainties for licensees whose existing and/or DTV channels are in that portion of the spectrum. We further understand that these uncertainties can make planning for DTV service more difficult and burdensome. We also concur that there is no engineering evidence available at this time to indicate that these channels are unsuitable for DTV operation and such channels offer desirable propagation characteristics for television service. We therefore recognize the benefits of including these channels in the core spectrum. We also note, however, that a DTV core spectrum of channels 2-46 would require significantly more second moves by broadcasters than a core of channels 7-51. In reconsidering this matter, we now believe that the most desirable course of action is to expand the core to include all channels 2-51.

42. This expansion of the core will eliminate the planning uncertainties for many broadcasters that have either DTV or NTSC channels in the channel 2-6 or 47-51 regions of the spectrum. Providing an additional five channels for DTV will reduce the number of out-of-core allotments, thereby further reducing the number of stations that will be required to make second channel moves. Expanding the core will also promote additional competition and diversity in the provision of DTV services by increasing the availability of channels for new stations and networks. Expansion of the core will also provide more flexibility to address new technical information on adjacent DTV channel performance and ensure that there is sufficient spectrum to eliminate DTV-to-DTV adjacent channel interference situations.

43. This change will also reduce the impact on low power operations. In this regard, channels 2-6 and 47-51 now support a significant number of low power and TV translators. The low VHF channels, for example, have some of the highest concentration of low power stations. Expanding the core to include channels 2-6 would eliminate the eventual displacement of most of these stations. In addition, expanding the core will also provide low power stations with more channels and opportunities for new stations and relocation of existing stations.

44. While we recognize that this change will reduce by 30 MHz the amount of contiguous spectrum to be recovered, we believe that the benefits of expanding the DTV core spectrum to include channels 2-51 outweigh the benefits of clearing either channels 2-6 or 47-51. Expanding the DTV core spectrum will permit recovery of 108 MHz of spectrum at the end of the transition period, which is more than one-fourth of the total spectrum used for broadcast television today. We note that this amount of spectrum is significantly more than our original plan to recover 72 MHz of spectrum. While expansion of the core spectrum may raise concerns about providing broadcasters with additional spectrum and reducing the amount of spectrum available to other service providers, these concerns are offset by the fact that this expansion will provide additional opportunities for new DTV stations and other new digital data services. Our analysis indicates that expanding the core will add approximately 175 additional channels, and that many of these new channels will be in top markets, including at least three new channels each in congested and highly-valuable New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Detroit. Last July, Congress expanded our auction authority to include assignment of broadcast licenses and therefore most of the new channels will be awarded through our auction procedures, as required under new Section 309(j)(14)(C) of the Communications Act. Additional benefits also exist, including less interference to existing broadcasters in major markets during the transition, continued operation of some 500 additional low power TV and TV translator stations that provide service to many suburban and rural areas and that otherwise might have been required to cease operation, and elimination of mandatory second moves into the core for about 120 broadcasters at the end of the transition. Based on these factors, we conclude that the public will benefit substantially from our expanding the core.