Wilmington prompts push for Distributed Transmission System - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 09:23 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
mosquito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Interesting article on the FCC possibly allowing low-power transmitters on the same channel to help broadcasters match their DTV coverage area to their analog area:

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/10/16/daily.2/
mosquito is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 09:54 AM
Member
 
peggy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If this will work, it sounds like a great idea.
peggy1 is offline  
post #3 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 10:15 AM
 
electrictroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why not just double the power? That too would increase the "circle" of coverage on the ground.

If for example current Wilmington stations have 40-mile range, then by the inverse-square law a doubling of power would increase range to approximately 55 miles total. (If I did my math correctly.)
electrictroy is offline  
post #4 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 10:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

Why not just double the power? That too would increase the "circle" of coverage on the ground.

Doubling the power only increases signal by 3 dB. You only gain a little bit of coverage by doubling the power. For example, I calculated WECT-DT at 710 kW (what they're going to have by the end of the year), then at 1420 kW. At 710 kW, the predicted coverage is 72.7 miles (117 km). At 1420 kW, it's 77 miles (124 km).

And that's just a prediction, it doesn't take into account the curvature of the Earth dropping off. UHF is line of sight. No amount of power in the world is going to make signals bend more.

I like the idea of stations implementing DTS in places without clear view to central tower sites. The FCC just needs to come up with final rules for them. The DTS I observed (WTVE-DT) seemed to cover very well in comparison to what 900 kW they were originally supposed to build out would have done.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 10:41 AM
 
electrictroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

I calculated WECT-DT at 710 kW (what they're going to have by the end of the year), then at 1420 kW. At 710 kW, the predicted coverage is 72.7 miles (117 km). At 1420 kW, it's 77 miles (124 km).

Well clearly if they already have over seventy miles range, then they don't need to boost their power. What if you start with a smaller, low-power station? Say 71 kilowatt versus 142 kilowatt. What's the difference in range then?
electrictroy is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 11:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

Well clearly if they already have over seventy miles range, then they don't need to boost their power. What if you start with a smaller, low-power station? Say 71 kilowatt versus 142 kilowatt. What's the difference in range then?

I picked WHTJ-DT, since it's the first one I could think of. It's not a perfect doubling, but close. They do 165 kW now and want to go to 340 kW (double would be 330 kW, so it's close enough). Note that it's not nearly as high up as WECT is, thus reduced range.

165 kW = 53 miles
340 kW = 56.6 miles

For kicks, I also used WUNE-DT in Linville, NC. They're on a mountaintop in western NC. They're planning to sign on at 55 kW and boost to 100 kW later on.

55 kW = 57.2 miles
100 kW = 60 miles

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #7 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 11:47 AM
 
electrictroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Those values don't even make sense. What does the range become if you HALVE the current power to 25 kilowatt?
electrictroy is offline  
post #8 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 11:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

Those values don't even make sense. What does the range become if you HALVE the current power to 25 kilowatt?

25 kW = 53.3 miles

It makes perfect sense. It's not a linear scale, it's logarithmic. Doubling power increases 3 dB. Halving it decreases 3 dB. 0.1 kW to 0.2 kW is 3 dB, as is 100 kW to 200 kW.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 11:59 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
mosquito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is DTS too little too late? I think OTA broadcasters have everything coming into alignment right now with the economy the way it is to try to bring people back into antenna TV. But it seems DTS should have been done a year or 6 months ago to make sure that people wouldn't have reception problems. I know a number of people who have already said screw it and went with the cheap $10 local channel plan from cable or satellite.

I think it's a great idea, but I guess I just don't understand why they are so far behind with it.
mosquito is offline  
post #10 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 12:11 PM
Senior Member
 
spokybob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito View Post

Interesting article on the FCC possibly allowing low-power transmitters on the same channel to help broadcasters match their DTV coverage area to their analog area:

That would be great. Just put the repeaters on the cell phone towers.

Bob 61231
spokybob is offline  
post #11 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 12:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito View Post

I think it's a great idea, but I guess I just don't understand why they are so far behind with it.

A lot of it has to do with the FCC having not established definitive rules on DTS. WTVE-DT has been operating under STA for YEARS now with their DTS, and most stations don't want to throw money at a DTS until the FCC puts some rules in stone.

Every existing DTS I've encountered has a different filing prefix, because no station seems to know just how the FCC wants it filed.

WTVE BSDTS
WVPT/WVPY BEXP
WPSU BPEXT
KTDO BDTSSTA

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I know of a few stations which are investigating DTS to fill in coverage holes or improve coverage, but until the FCC specifies some rules for them, most stations are going to avoid it. Who wants to build a facility that the FCC might later decide doesn't fit into rules that didn't exist when the facility was built?

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #12 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 04:35 PM
Senior Member
 
nwiser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What kind of power output do analog stations have now? is it the same level as what their digital counterparts have or is it higher? If the digital signal is much lower, what would be the problem in sending out their digital signal at the same power as their analog, other than it wouldnt save stations money?

Also, does anyone think there would ever come a time where stations would be willing to intentionally send their signal to other markets (as opposed to now where people occassionally pick up signals from other markets due to their antennas and tropospheric reception effects)?
nwiser is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 04:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwiser View Post

What kind of power output do analog stations have now? is it the same level as what their digital counterparts have or is it higher? If the digital signal is much lower, what would be the problem in sending out their digital signal at the same power as their analog, other than it wouldnt save stations money?

Well, power levels aren't measured the same in analog and in digital. Analog power is measured by peak power, since a black picture requires more power than a white picture (or the other way around, I forget). So even if a UHF station is licensed for 5000 kW, that's assuming a solid black/white (whichever) picture is being transmitted. At the opposite end, you'll be much, much lower. I honestly don't remember what the average number is, but I want to say it could be in the 2000 kW range.

On top of that, audio is generally carried at 1/10 the power of the video, so that 5000 kW UHF has a 500 kW audio signal.

Digital power is measured as an average, rather than a peak. So 1000 kW is only 3 dB down from 2000 kW (assuming I'm right, which I may not be). And that's without the consideration that much less signal is needed for a digital. On top of that, boosting signal makes multipath interference worse, so you need to take that under consideration.

The problem is that a lot of stations were low-VHF analogs and on UHF they don't cover the same area. No amount of power on UHF is going to make the signals bend around the curvature of the Earth better. Translators or DTS will have to be the solution, assuming stations even consider it to be worthwhile.

And moving them back to low-VHF is no good because low-VHF digitals break up all the time over the tiniest things. That noise that didn't bother you too much on low-VHF analog destroys the digital.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #14 of 31 Old 10-17-2008, 05:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jtbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinton, SC
Posts: 3,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

Why not just double the power? That too would increase the "circle" of coverage on the ground.

If a station increases coverage in all directions indiscriminately, it's more likely to interfere with a neighboring station. Remember, they have to take into account both co-channel and adjacent-channel interference. With auxiliary transmitters they can tailor the coverage area more carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spokybob View Post

Just put the repeaters on the cell phone towers.

They could call it "wireless TV"
jtbell is offline  
post #15 of 31 Old 10-18-2008, 12:43 AM
Member
 
confuzzled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Increased power output won't help in areas filled with ridges and valleys. DTS with towers properly placed could give an ideal signal to viewers on the back side of hills.
confuzzled is offline  
post #16 of 31 Old 10-18-2008, 08:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: OC, CA
Posts: 2,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The US has a very under-developed translator/repeater system. In many areas, this is due to using VHF as a crutch for far too long. DTS rules should have been put into place earlier, but our "friends" at the WSD Coalition have vigorously fought the adoption of such.

I agree with Trip and have mentioned the need for increased sites before. Leasing space from cell phone towers would seem to be an easy way to accomplish this, rather than building new towers. However, can we get broadcasters to co-locate their boosters, etc.

For an example of a well developed system, have a look at this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/trans...v_mendip.shtml

Granted, only the main transmitter site in this area (Mendip) has DTV right now, but this is typical of the UK system. They will be converting the repeater sites over the next 4 years and upping the main DTV power.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #17 of 31 Old 10-20-2008, 07:42 AM
 
electrictroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Surely a doubling or even tripling of power is cheaper than erecting several hundred repeaters across the landscape? Transmitters require additional labor to drive-out and periodically inspect the repeaters. What works for the urban U.K. won't work for the mostly-rural south or west U.S., due to the expense of building a repeater that only serves a dozen farmers living in Kentucky, or Missouri, or Nebraska. I suspect that's why most stations don't use repeaters, preferring to boost power at the main transmitters since it saves money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

It makes perfect sense. It's not a linear scale, it's logarithmic. Doubling power increases 3 dB.

Pointing to the ruler and saying "it's logarithmic" does not explain why a doubling from 700kw to 1400kw only increases the signal by ~12 microwatt at 60 miles distance. So I looked at wikipedia, and found the answer in this photo (below). As the power moves outwards, its strength spreads-out across an ever-enlarging sphere: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...re_law.svg.png - Imagine drawing a 1 millimeter dot on a balloon and then expanding the balloon to 60 miles radius. That dot will have expanded to 17 miles across. The power from a station spreads-out in a similar fashion.

I should have known that the effect at long distance would be minimal. Most of the advantage of doubling power is to "blast through" trees and other obstacles (like ridges) at a closer range of 20-30 miles..... to decrease the amount of freeze-frames a "viewer in the woods" or "in a depression" will experience. The station manager's goal is not to extend the range of the contour, but to strengthen the signal *inside* the existing contour & make the station easier to tune-in.

At 20 miles moving from 700 to 1400kw increases that viewer's received strength by 5000 microwatts..... a much more-significant difference..... perhaps the difference between seeing & not seeing the station.
electrictroy is offline  
post #18 of 31 Old 10-20-2008, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
raj2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wantage, NJ
Posts: 1,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Doesn't NJN use distributed transmitters? It seems to be working out quite well for them.

There's nowhere I can go in NJ without being able to get NJN. Even in out in the woods where I live we still get NJN on channel 36 (W36AZ). With a proper antenna I can get them on their main channels (50 and 58), but with an indoor antenna I can still get them on 36.

Ryan, N2RJ

Opinions expressed are solely my own, and not that of my employers, its parent company, affiliates and subsidiaries.
raj2001 is offline  
post #19 of 31 Old 10-20-2008, 07:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj2001 View Post

Doesn't NJN use distributed transmitters? It seems to be working out quite well for them.

There's nowhere I can go in NJ without being able to get NJN. Even in out in the woods where I live we still get NJN on channel 36 (W36AZ). With a proper antenna I can get them on their main channels (50 and 58), but with an indoor antenna I can still get them on 36.

No. NJN uses a series of four full-powered transmitters plus a few low-powered translators on differing channels. A DTS would be using one channel and multiple transmitters.

The closest they come is WNJB has two on-channel boosters for analog. WNJB1 is down in Long Branch and WNJB2 is in Blairstown, so if you're seeing 58 analog in those areas, those are boosters. I expect WNJB1 won't survive the transition if the signal from Times Square is acceptable in Long Branch, but I wonder what happens to WNJB2 in Blairstown. Maybe NJN will end up with a DTS at some point.

W36AZ does have a permit to go digital on channel 35 as W35CI-D.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #20 of 31 Old 10-21-2008, 10:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
systems2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central Franklin County, PA.
Posts: 2,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Since most of my reception is 2-edge, I'd gladly accept this method (or any other OTA method) that gets me more solid reception.
systems2000 is offline  
post #21 of 31 Old 10-24-2008, 01:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,746
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 68
KPRI-FM has a similar on-channel FM booster network:
http://hdtv.forsandiego.com/messages/1/6659.html
The distributed low power boosters fill in "holes" in the coverage due to terrain blockage....
holl_ands is offline  
post #22 of 31 Old 10-24-2008, 06:33 AM
 
electrictroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How come most of KPRI's power goes out across the Pacific Ocean? http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-serv...FM1233171.html - That seems like a waste of power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by systems2000 View Post

Since most of my reception is 2-edge, I'd gladly accept this method (or any other OTA method) that gets me more solid reception.

Unless you live in a major town, it's doubtful a repeater would be aimed in your direction.

Like when I was in Michigan: I could receive the CW station as long as I was inside Grand Rapids, Battle Creek, or one of the other major towns, but in-between the towns? Nothing. They didn't bother to install transmitters for the rural residents.
electrictroy is offline  
post #23 of 31 Old 10-24-2008, 08:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

Like when I was in Michigan: I could receive the CW station as long as I was inside Grand Rapids, Battle Creek, or one of the other major towns, but in-between the towns? Nothing. They didn't bother to install transmitters for the rural residents.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume you mean MyNetworkTV (or UPN) and not CW. In that area, CW is on WWMT-DT 3-2. WXSP-LP is on a network of LPTV stations as well as on WOOD-DT 8-2 and WOTV-DT 41-2.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #24 of 31 Old 10-24-2008, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,746
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

How come most of KPRI's power goes out across the Pacific Ocean?
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-serv...FM1233171.html - That seems like a waste of power.

Obviously to provide coverage for the flotilla of pleasure craft and fishermen....
holl_ands is offline  
post #25 of 31 Old 10-26-2008, 06:38 AM
 
electrictroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

Quote:


Unless you live in a major town, it's doubtful a repeater would be aimed in your direction. Like when I was in Michigan: I could receive the CW station as long as I was inside Grand Rapids, Battle Creek, or one of the other major towns, but in-between the towns? Nothing. They didn't bother to install transmitters for the rural residents.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and assume you mean MyNetworkTV (or UPN) and not CW.

Yes. I couldn't watch UPN shows like Star Trek or Veronica Mars or Next Top Model, if I was outside of the key towns. The same is true for the NBC station that broadcasts from Scranton to State College PA:

- The repeaters provide additional coverage, but these repeaters are only aimed at major towns. If you live outside the town, the repeater does absolutely nothing to help you. The same will be true for the DTV distributed system.
electrictroy is offline  
post #26 of 31 Old 10-27-2008, 10:48 PM
Newbie
 
Dark Ages's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwiser View Post

Also, does anyone think there would ever come a time where stations would be willing to intentionally send their signal to other markets (as opposed to now where people occassionally pick up signals from other markets due to their antennas and tropospheric reception effects)?


Where I live, out-of-market stations are watched every day because Connecticut has a fractured market. I've been doing some research and it seems "local" stations around here mean 14 different cities in 5 different states - this is of course in analog. These stations aren't just an occasional passing signal - they are every day viewing. The New England and Mid-Atlantic states have a lot of interdependence, and I hope the hell they come up with some way to keep the different segments of the Connecticut in touch with the markets we are used to having. By the looks of things in digital, the strongest station for me may well be an ION network station - I like old shows as much as the next guy, but they don't do news.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jtbell View Post

If a station increases coverage in all directions indiscriminately, it's more likely to interfere with a neighboring station. Remember, they have to take into account both co-channel and adjacent-channel interference. With auxiliary transmitters they can tailor the coverage area more carefully.

Maybe if stations in neighboring states weren't jumping to numbers that can't coexist, it would help. I know the signals aren't going to go as far as analog, but I think the same rules should apply - 125 miles between markets with the same channel number. I mean ch.61 here in analog is using 31 in digital - I already get a 31 from NY, and they are also using 31 in digital - just because the medium is changing, doesn't mean the rules about the numbers should be forgotten.



Quote:
Originally Posted by raj2001 View Post

There's nowhere I can go in NJ without being able to get NJN. Even in out in the woods where I live we still get NJN on channel 36 (W36AZ). With a proper antenna I can get them on their main channels (50 and 58), but with an indoor antenna I can still get them on 36.

NJN travels well - it reaches me in analog (23, 50, 52, 58), and on a warm day we got them in digital too, but that another place where I run into number trouble - several CPTV stations are changing numbers in digital to the same numbers NJN uses. It really seems like the stations want to knock each other out, or were told it would no longer matter.
Dark Ages is offline  
post #27 of 31 Old 10-28-2008, 12:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 26
Posts: 14,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Speaking of DTS, WTVE-DT filed to license their most powerful transmitter (the 126 kW one in Philly) and in doing so, at long last has submitted a publicly-viewable map of the DTS facility. It's quite impressive, the facility they've put together. Here's the PDF:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/f...ibit_id=696564

It's down around page 25.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #28 of 31 Old 11-04-2008, 09:54 AM
Member
 
asg1290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Manitou Spring, CO
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by confuzzled View Post

Increased power output won't help in areas filled with ridges and valleys. DTS with towers properly placed could give an ideal signal to viewers on the back side of hills.

Like me who gets 4 analog channels but get ZERO digital channels. I'm on the wrong side of a mountain only 10 miles from the tower.
asg1290 is online now  
post #29 of 31 Old 11-06-2008, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jtbell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinton, SC
Posts: 3,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
A key feature of DTS is that all the transmitters use the same channel, right? But if a receiver can receive signals from more than one transmitter, wouldn't the effect be similar to multipath interference?
jtbell is offline  
post #30 of 31 Old 11-07-2008, 12:11 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
mosquito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I believe the theory is that the latest generation tuners can deal with this type of artificial multipath so that it won't pose a problem. Although in reality, I would bet that some people would be affected by it, in which case the station needs to balance how many people would benefit from DTS vs those that might actually lose a good signal.
mosquito is offline  
Reply Coupon Eligible Converter Box (CECB)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off