Greensboro, NC - HDTV - Page 372 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11131 of 11247 Old 05-02-2014, 06:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejb1980 View Post

Why does it say it's in Greensboro when that site is far from Greensboro? Does anything else from that site ID as Greensboro?

Because this is a hyphenated DMA (DMA's are used for a lot of different groups and federal agencies besides Nielsen) the first city in the name is used. In this case, it is Greensboro since this is the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point DMA.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #11132 of 11247 Old 05-02-2014, 08:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
This is an anniversary that isn't really celebrated anymore, but it falls in that "useless info" column. I am also a couple days late with it too.

This past Tuesday, April 29 marks 12 years since WGHP-DT (as it was licensed then) hit the air (April 29, 2002). It came up at 5pm for the FOX8 5 O'clock News and has remained on since, baring short stints of transmitter problems in the early days. There was no fanfare since we didn't think anyone was watching. We were trying to make the deadline to broadcast digital by May 1, 2002.

The transmitter was a 500 watt channel 35 transmitter (we still have it but it hasn't been powered up in years) with an ERP of 4200 watts off an antenna at 900 ft on our original tower. We still use the antenna as our second backup with a more powerful transmitter these days for 50,000 ERP (max we can get off that antenna).

For the first month or so, we experimented with the picture format changing from 1080i to 720p to 480p until word came down from corporate that all stations would transmit 480p. The AR was 4:3 since we were converting the analog signal to digital. We did get a phone call the following day asking us why we didn't have FOX network in 16:9! We had at least one viewer who literally stumbled across our signal.

In December of 2002 we began broadcasting FOX network in 16:9 480p. In 2004 we transitioned to HD when FOX began 720p HD that September. We went full power (1 million watts ERP) on channel 35 in August of 2006.
eacalhoun likes this.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #11133 of 11247 Old 05-02-2014, 05:45 PM
Newbie
 
GVR_Old_Tech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The manned weather station for this area WAS based at the Piedmont Triad International Airport, PTIA, which has a Greensboro address.
GVR_Old_Tech is offline  
post #11134 of 11247 Old 05-02-2014, 05:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tylerSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mauldin SC, 29607
Posts: 3,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

This is an anniversary that isn't really celebrated anymore, but it falls in that "useless info" column. I am also a couple days late with it too.

This past Tuesday, April 29 marks 12 years since WGHP-DT (as it was licensed then) hit the air (April 29, 2002). It came up at 5pm for the FOX8 5 O'clock News and has remained on since, baring short stints of transmitter problems in the early days. There was no fanfare since we didn't think anyone was watching. We were trying to make the deadline to broadcast digital by May 1, 2002.

The transmitter was a 500 watt channel 35 transmitter (we still have it but it hasn't been powered up in years) with an ERP of 4200 watts off an antenna at 900 ft on our original tower. We still use the antenna as our second backup with a more powerful transmitter these days for 50,000 ERP (max we can get off that antenna).

For the first month or so, we experimented with the picture format changing from 1080i to 720p to 480p until word came down from corporate that all stations would transmit 480p. The AR was 4:3 since we were converting the analog signal to digital. We did get a phone call the following day asking us why we didn't have FOX network in 16:9! We had at least one viewer who literally stumbled across our signal.

In December of 2002 we began broadcasting FOX network in 16:9 480p. In 2004 we transitioned to HD when FOX began 720p HD that September. We went full power (1 million watts ERP) on channel 35 in August of 2006.
But there was a period of time in there somewhere when WGHP-DT also broadcast on RF8. But for some reason the VHF signal was not as good and you were allowed to return to RF35. But ironically, the RF8 signal seems to work well for WOLO in Columbia, where it extends into the Charlotte area including Rock Hill and Fort Mill.
tylerSC is offline  
post #11135 of 11247 Old 05-02-2014, 07:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerSC View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

This is an anniversary that isn't really celebrated anymore, but it falls in that "useless info" column. I am also a couple days late with it too.

This past Tuesday, April 29 marks 12 years since WGHP-DT (as it was licensed then) hit the air (April 29, 2002). It came up at 5pm for the FOX8 5 O'clock News and has remained on since, baring short stints of transmitter problems in the early days. There was no fanfare since we didn't think anyone was watching. We were trying to make the deadline to broadcast digital by May 1, 2002.

The transmitter was a 500 watt channel 35 transmitter (we still have it but it hasn't been powered up in years) with an ERP of 4200 watts off an antenna at 900 ft on our original tower. We still use the antenna as our second backup with a more powerful transmitter these days for 50,000 ERP (max we can get off that antenna).

For the first month or so, we experimented with the picture format changing from 1080i to 720p to 480p until word came down from corporate that all stations would transmit 480p. The AR was 4:3 since we were converting the analog signal to digital. We did get a phone call the following day asking us why we didn't have FOX network in 16:9! We had at least one viewer who literally stumbled across our signal.

In December of 2002 we began broadcasting FOX network in 16:9 480p. In 2004 we transitioned to HD when FOX began 720p HD that September. We went full power (1 million watts ERP) on channel 35 in August of 2006.
But there was a period of time in there somewhere when WGHP-DT also broadcast on RF8. But for some reason the VHF signal was not as good and you were allowed to return to RF35. But ironically, the RF8 signal seems to work well for WOLO in Columbia, where it extends into the Charlotte area including Rock Hill and Fort Mill.

There was a 7 day period from June 13-19 2009 that channel 35 was not authorized. When we shutdown analog 8 on June 12 2009 at 11:05pm, we turned on digital 8. Channel 35 continued to operate for another 55 minutes until 12 midnight when 35 shutdown, with the intent of never turning it back on again.

What we found out was that stations allocated VHF High digitals, such as us, did not get the power levels that VHF High stations who had come on while analog was still operating. WOLO channel 8 received an initial power level around 42 kw. I don't remember exactly. We were issued 11 kw on channel 8 digital, a quarter of their power. We lost around 50% of our OTA audience. We estimated due to other digital stations already on the air, we could only hope for 20 kw max power. Still 50% less than WOLO. Three DB signal increase wasn't going to get it. The following Wednesday, we had FCC inspectors in the station running measurements and they concluded that 11 kw wasn't going to get it. They also indirectly agreed (they wouldn't commit to ANYTHING and basically couldn't wait to get out of the station) that 20 kw probably won't get it either. The only thing they would agree to was to allow us to file for an emergency temporary license for channel 35 and see if the technical rules would allow 35 back on the air since the license technically expired June 12th and other stations were now on the air that had not been before. Well luckily 35 still worked so on Friday June 19, the FCC allowed channel 35 back on the air, while allowing channel 8 to continue to operate digital as well. Over the next few months we did field strength measurements comparing 8 with 35. It became very clear that it would take something in the neighborhood of 80 to 120 kw on channel 8 to replicate channel 35 coverage, which did mostly replicate channel 8 analog coverage There was no way the FCC would allocate that much power on the East Coast. Most power I have heard of on the East Coast has been in the high 40's to one station with a little over 50. Stations out west were able to increase over 100 kw due to the sparse number of stations. It was at that point we applied to change channels to 35 and in March of 2010 we were granted authority to "change channels" from 8 to 35 and we turned channel 8 off for good.

That is a first hand account because I was there. I did it. I was in the middle of it. Somewhere in this threads archive, is the more fleshed out version of this story.

The whole reason we stayed on 8 was due to a corporate decision that was made in 2005 where FOX wanted the VHF high stations that could remain in VHF high to stay. We were one of the stations that could. Also, we thought we would get more power than we did. As time went on and more rules were put in place, our power level dropped from an estimated 25 kw in 2005 to an allocated 11 kw in 2009. Every VHF high station that could raise power has pretty much done so. Even WOLO increased power after we vacated channel 8. So did the VHF high stations down east. Most doubling power in the 30 to 40 kw range up from 15 kw in those cases.

As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now you know the rest of the story."

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #11136 of 11247 Old 05-02-2014, 07:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
ejb1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVR_Old_Tech View Post

The manned weather station for this area WAS based at the Piedmont Triad International Airport, PTIA, which has a Greensboro address.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Because this is a hyphenated DMA (DMA's are used for a lot of different groups and federal agencies besides Nielsen) the first city in the name is used. In this case, it is Greensboro since this is the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point DMA.

Using that logic, the Chapel Hill and Henderson NWS Radio stations would both say Morrisville (or at least Raleigh-Durham). The website says the COL (aka site name) is W-S. They have cool coverage maps there, pretty detailed. Based on my pathetic NWS radio, they are accurate, too. Chapel Hill is clear and Roanoke is listenably fuzzy, if you will. I get the Sauratown Mtn signal and Henderson, too, but they are barely there. I really stopped listening to NWS Radio when the robot voice took over. I really can't understand it well. I change the station they come on the radio. So annoying.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/Maps/PHP/northcarolina.php#Station
ejb1980 is online now  
post #11137 of 11247 Old 05-03-2014, 05:49 PM
Senior Member
 
difuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

There was a 7 day period from June 13-19 2009 that channel 35 was not authorized. When we shutdown analog 8 on June 12 2009 at 11:05pm, we turned on digital 8. Channel 35 continued to operate for another 55 minutes until 12 midnight when 35 shutdown, with the intent of never turning it back on again.

What we found out was that stations allocated VHF High digitals, such as us, did not get the power levels that VHF High stations who had come on while analog was still operating. WOLO channel 8 received an initial power level around 42 kw. I don't remember exactly. We were issued 11 kw on channel 8 digital, a quarter of their power. We lost around 50% of our OTA audience. We estimated due to other digital stations already on the air, we could only hope for 20 kw max power. Still 50% less than WOLO. Three DB signal increase wasn't going to get it. The following Wednesday, we had FCC inspectors in the station running measurements and they concluded that 11 kw wasn't going to get it. They also indirectly agreed (they wouldn't commit to ANYTHING and basically couldn't wait to get out of the station) that 20 kw probably won't get it either. The only thing they would agree to was to allow us to file for an emergency temporary license for channel 35 and see if the technical rules would allow 35 back on the air since the license technically expired June 12th and other stations were now on the air that had not been before. Well luckily 35 still worked so on Friday June 19, the FCC allowed channel 35 back on the air, while allowing channel 8 to continue to operate digital as well. Over the next few months we did field strength measurements comparing 8 with 35. It became very clear that it would take something in the neighborhood of 80 to 120 kw on channel 8 to replicate channel 35 coverage, which did mostly replicate channel 8 analog coverage There was no way the FCC would allocate that much power on the East Coast. Most power I have heard of on the East Coast has been in the high 40's to one station with a little over 50. Stations out west were able to increase over 100 kw due to the sparse number of stations. It was at that point we applied to change channels to 35 and in March of 2010 we were granted authority to "change channels" from 8 to 35 and we turned channel 8 off for good.



y."

There were sure issues with RF 8. I wasn't 15 miles from the transmitter, so I had signal. But I was in a low spot. One day, WGHP was not being received too well. At length I noticed an aluminum bodied box truck about 150 yards up on higher ground. When it left, WGHP came back nicely. Classic multipath. The box was kicking back a good signal to my set, which could not then decode properly.
Sometimes an older vehicle with a misfiring ignition would drive by. Five or six seconds of lost sound and picture while the chips relocked on signal.. Now, I'm far enough away from the WTVI transmitter that multipath is no problem, and far enough from the road that ignition isn't either. But there sure seem to be plenty of people around Charlotte that are having the same problems with RF 11 I had with RF 8 those years ago. VHF of all sorts probably should be confined to sparsely inhabited flat lands with few tall structures and little traffic on the roads. But I don't know if there is a will or way for that.
difuse is offline  
post #11138 of 11247 Old 05-03-2014, 07:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
ejb1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Burlington, NC
Posts: 695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 25
ejb1980 is online now  
post #11139 of 11247 Old 05-04-2014, 06:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tylerSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mauldin SC, 29607
Posts: 3,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post

There were sure issues with RF 8. I wasn't 15 miles from the transmitter, so I had signal. But I was in a low spot. One day, WGHP was not being received too well. At length I noticed an aluminum bodied box truck about 150 yards up on higher ground. When it left, WGHP came back nicely. Classic multipath. The box was kicking back a good signal to my set, which could not then decode properly.
Sometimes an older vehicle with a misfiring ignition would drive by. Five or six seconds of lost sound and picture while the chips relocked on signal.. Now, I'm far enough away from the WTVI transmitter that multipath is no problem, and far enough from the road that ignition isn't either. But there sure seem to be plenty of people around Charlotte that are having the same problems with RF 11 I had with RF 8 those years ago. VHF of all sorts probably should be confined to sparsely inhabited flat lands with few tall structures and little traffic on the roads. But I don't know if there is a will or way for that.
Some of the VHF digital stations were allowed to increase power so they have a good signal. Such as WXIA in Atlanta, and WUSA and WJLA in DC. And even WSPA in Spartanburg has a good signal. And apparently one of the VHF stations in LA has a very strong signal, but I forget which one.
tylerSC is offline  
post #11140 of 11247 Old 05-04-2014, 06:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tylerSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mauldin SC, 29607
Posts: 3,968
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 89
And of course WTVI in Charlotte has a limited signal due to WTVD RF11 in Durham.
tylerSC is offline  
post #11141 of 11247 Old 05-04-2014, 06:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
evan237's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Winston-Salem NC
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

The whole reason we stayed on 8 was due to a corporate decision that was made in 2005 where FOX wanted the VHF high stations that could remain in VHF high to stay. We were one of the stations that could. Also, we thought we would get more power than we did. As time went on and more rules were put in place, our power level dropped from an estimated 25 kw in 2005 to an allocated 11 kw in 2009."

With all the uncertainties that existed regarding VHF high, it's interesting that FOX wanted WGHP and others to remain in VHF....even if they thought the stations could get a bit more power. I don't think any of the other Triad stations made any attempts to remain in VHF. I am just glad that WGHP was allowed to return to RF35 and that everything worked out for the station. It could have just as easily turned out bad for WGHP since the FCC doesn't exactly bend over backwards to help out. I am guessing the only lasting consequence of WGHP's initial decision to remain on VHF (before going back to RF35 permanently) is the requirement for WGHP to protect WSOC and WAXN-TV on RFs 34/36? However, it seems that the current OTA coverage of WGHP on RF34 is close to what it used to be back in the analog days.
evan237 is offline  
post #11142 of 11247 Old 05-04-2014, 06:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
evan237's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Winston-Salem NC
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerSC View Post

And of course WTVI in Charlotte has a limited signal due to WTVD RF11 in Durham.

Of course, I cannot see WTVD Durham. But it seems there were a number of viewers on the Raleigh forum (back in the day) complaining about the less than optimal signal from WTVD. And I think this is the only RDU station that remains in VHF.
evan237 is offline  
post #11143 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 03:12 AM
Senior Member
 
difuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerSC View Post

Some of the VHF digital stations were allowed to increase power so they have a good signal. Such as WXIA in Atlanta, and WUSA and WJLA in DC. And even WSPA in Spartanburg has a good signal. And apparently one of the VHF stations in LA has a very strong signal, but I forget which one.
Signal strength is good at a distance from the transmitter. And, had WGHP gotten a significant signal increase, its coverage area would have increased, but the difficulties in Greensboro and High Point probably would have been no better. Substantial structures bouncing the signal , stray electromagnetic radiation, large aircraft taking off and landing and a lot of potential reflectors on a lot of roads, all often a bigger problem for VHF reception than UHF...... reception glitches that might only have been slight annoyances with analog TV could become digital killers.
difuse is offline  
post #11144 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 06:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by evan237 View Post

I don't think any of the other Triad stations made any attempts to remain in VHF. I am just glad that WGHP was allowed to return to RF35 and that everything worked out for the station. It could have just as easily turned out bad for WGHP since the FCC doesn't exactly bend over backwards to help out. I am guessing the only lasting consequence of WGHP's initial decision to remain on VHF (before going back to RF35 permanently) is the requirement for WGHP to protect WSOC and WAXN-TV on RFs 34/36? However, it seems that the current OTA coverage of WGHP on RF34 is close to what it used to be back in the analog days.

WFMY could have easily stayed on channel 2, but really DIDN'T want to due to known issues of VHF Low and digital. WXII really couldn't. That left us. We could, and it could have worked, if the FCC hadn't kept systematically reducing power. The issue was not "coverage" in the meaning of distance, we had that. When we dropped channel 8 we heard from people in other markets who could not pick the channel 35 signal. But since they were not in the DMA and their viewing habits were not measured for this market, that didn't buy us anything. It was "coverage" in the sense of "power density" within buildings within Winston-Salem and Greensboro. There just wasn't enough. Even at 13 miles from the transmitter, the distance the studios are from the transmitter, the FCC themselves didn't even pick up a whiff of a signal on channel 8 digital, where during analog, there was a measurable signal inside. To overcome that, it would take a 80 to 120kw signal. That wasn't going to happen for us. Our only recourse was to go back to 35.

WSOC and WGHP had been allowed 34/35 at one megawatt ERP each in 1998, so there was no issue with interference. When we went back to 35, we had to prove that and we did, to the satisfaction of WSOC. We also allowed the channel 36 China Grove translator for WSOC/WAXN, since technically it could cause interference to our signal. But both stations looking at the DMAs and audience viewing patterns, any interference to WSOC from us would have been at the base of our tower and any interference to us from the China Grove translator on channel 36 would have been in China Grove, an area that is not measured for us. So there was no issue for either station. Everyone got what they wanted. We continue to have a good working relationship with WSOC, and they with us, as it should be. Life goes on.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #11145 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 11:43 AM
Senior Member
 
difuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

WFMY could have easily stayed on channel 2, but really DIDN'T want to due to known issues of VHF Low and digital. WXII really couldn't. That left us. We could, and it could have worked, if the FCC hadn't kept systematically reducing power. The issue was not "coverage" in the meaning of distance, we had that. When we dropped channel 8 we heard from people in other markets who could not pick the channel 35 signal. But since they were not in the DMA and their viewing habits were not measured for this market, that didn't buy us anything. It was "coverage" in the sense of "power density" within buildings within Winston-Salem and Greensboro. There just wasn't enough. Even at 13 miles from the transmitter, the distance the studios are from the transmitter, the FCC themselves didn't even pick up a whiff of a signal on channel 8 digital, where during analog, there was a measurable signal inside. To overcome that, it would take a 80 to 120kw signal. That wasn't going to happen for us. Our only recourse was to go back to 35.

WSOC and WGHP had been allowed 34/35 at one megawatt ERP each in 1998, so there was no issue with interference. When we went back to 35, we had to prove that and we did, to the satisfaction of WSOC. We also allowed the channel 36 China Grove translator for WSOC/WAXN, since technically it could cause interference to our signal. But both stations looking at the DMAs and audience viewing patterns, any interference to WSOC from us would have been at the base of our tower and any interference to us from the China Grove translator on channel 36 would have been in China Grove, an area that is not measured for us. So there was no issue for either station. Everyone got what they wanted. We continue to have a good working relationship with WSOC, and they with us, as it should be. Life goes on.
My take is that WGHP got a real break. The FCC was not then, nor now, too interested in indoor OTA reception. I'm happy it worked out that way. Thanks for the insights.
difuse is offline  
post #11146 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 01:16 PM
Newbie
 
JayCeeNC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

In the past month my Channel 12 signal has gradually degraded to the point I only get badly pixelated reception.

Anything going on with Channel 12, or could it just be that the trees are full of foliage now that it's Spring and interrupting the signal?

 

 

JayCeeNC is offline  
post #11147 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jspENC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 4,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCeeNC View Post

In the past month my Channel 12 signal has gradually degraded to the point I only get badly pixelated reception.
Anything going on with Channel 12, or could it just be that the trees are full of foliage now that it's Spring and interrupting the signal?




Could be trees, but I really doubt it. Is the antenna outside? Go check all outdoor coax fittings for water. Unscrew them from your splitters or grounding and the antenna balun and be sure the center conductor is not rusted or wet. It should be shiny bright.
jspENC is offline  
post #11148 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 02:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post

My take is that WGHP got a real break. The FCC was not then, nor now, too interested in indoor OTA reception. I'm happy it worked out that way. Thanks for the insights.

I wouldn't say that WGHP "got a real break" so much as WGHP had a problem and asked to resolve it right away. Plenty of stations who tried VHF and had issues with it were able to move to UHF with the FCC's blessing leading up to and right after the transition. The problems arose for stations like those owned by Media-General who waited until the rumors were circling about a freeze on changes from VHF to UHF and then filed to move. In those cases, the stations clearly didn't think the reception problems were worth spending money on.

On the other hand, there are plenty of stations who would presumably have loved to get off VHF, but in many parts of the country there was just nowhere to go. WPVI in Philadelphia, WGAL in Lancaster, WOIO in Cleveland, and I'm sure many others would have loved to have spent the money to move to UHF at or maybe even before the transition, but there were simply no UHF channels available. That's not the FCC not wanting to help (all three got emergency power increases and two of the three got UHF translators), that's just a shortage of spectrum.

In a lot of ways, WGHP got lucky. If WUNC had opted to move to channel 35 instead of 25, which probably would have worked from a technical point of view, WGHP would have been stuck on 8, or would have had to justify building a new facility on another channel (presumably 25, in that case). But, since 35 was more or less wide open, WGHP had the ability to move right back with the existing already-built-and-paid-for UHF facility when it didn't work.

- 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 #11149 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 02:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jspENC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 4,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
It doesn't matter to me whether it's VHF or UHF, I think both should be able to double their power from where they are right now. 2 million watt max on UHF, and 80 to 100kW on VHF hi sounds about right. cool.gif I am probably delusional though, at least for the next few years...
jspENC is offline  
post #11150 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 02:58 PM
Senior Member
 
difuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

I wouldn't say that WGHP "got a real break" so much as WGHP had a problem and asked to resolve it right away. Plenty of stations who tried VHF and had issues with it were able to move to UHF with the FCC's blessing leading up to and right after the transition. The problems arose for stations like those owned by Media-General who waited until the rumors were circling about a freeze on changes from VHF to UHF and then filed to move. In those cases, the stations clearly didn't think the reception problems were worth spending money on.

On the other hand, there are plenty of stations who would presumably have loved to get off VHF, but in many parts of the country there was just nowhere to go. WPVI in Philadelphia, WGAL in Lancaster, WOIO in Cleveland, and I'm sure many others would have loved to have spent the money to move to UHF at or maybe even before the transition, but there were simply no UHF channels available. That's not the FCC not wanting to help (all three got emergency power increases and two of the three got UHF translators), that's just a shortage of spectrum.

In a lot of ways, WGHP got lucky. If WUNC had opted to move to channel 35 instead of 25, which probably would have worked from a technical point of view, WGHP would have been stuck on 8, or would have had to justify building a new facility on another channel (presumably 25, in that case). But, since 35 was more or less wide open, WGHP had the ability to move right back with the existing already-built-and-paid-for UHF facility when it didn't work.

- Trip
Thanks for that, Trip. My take is based on the FCC's general concept that OTA is accomplished with an outdoor, 30 foot antenna. As I recall, WPVI got a power increase: evidently there are still problems in Philly, although areas of New Jersey are ok. I"m sure you know much more about WBRA's difficulties than I. Channel 3 seemed like a death sentence, although it has not quite been so. I'll call that bad luck.
difuse is offline  
post #11151 of 11247 Old 05-05-2014, 06:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspENC View Post

It doesn't matter to me whether it's VHF or UHF, I think both should be able to double their power from where they are right now. 2 million watt max on UHF, and 80 to 100kW on VHF hi sounds about right. cool.gif I am probably delusional though, at least for the next few years...

UHF digital power is pretty reasonable at 1000 kW. Think about this...

The analog UHF limit was 5000 kW. But this was for peak power (when the screen was solid black), and not average power like when measuring digital. When you adjust the analog power down to average, you are at about 2200 kW or so. Then, think that a clear analog picture required something like 50 dB SNR, while digital only requires 16 dB MER, give or take, and is theoretically limited to something like 43 dB.

So boosting from 1000 kW to 2000 kW would cost twice as much in electricity, add quite a bit to construction cost, and buy you 3 dB of added signal strength on a signal that is already easier to receive cleanly by 30 dB. Even if you raised the cap to 2000 kW, I doubt anyone would build it.

VHF power, by contrast, is more about overcoming local noise sources, so every little bit helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by difuse View Post

Thanks for that, Trip. My take is based on the FCC's general concept that OTA is accomplished with an outdoor, 30 foot antenna. As I recall, WPVI got a power increase: evidently there are still problems in Philly, although areas of New Jersey are ok. I"m sure you know much more about WBRA's difficulties than I. Channel 3 seemed like a death sentence, although it has not quite been so. I'll call that bad luck.

You're correct, the FCC planning factors assume an outdoor antenna. Of course, this is pretty reasonable since it's so hard to model signal level in buildings without a database of where every building is, what it's made of, how tall it is, etc. Assuming an antenna at 30 feet (which is what's always been recommended for TV) gets buildings out of the way in most cases, making the modeling more reasonable.

The low-VHF stations in urban areas are all still suffering, though not as much due to massive power increases. The high VHF stations have mostly dealt with it, though it's pretty obvious that more power would have helped a lot. But this is one of those things where certain high-VHF stations seem to do really well and others don't, and I've not been able to establish a pattern as to why. WSET seems to do pretty well, in general, while it seems WTVD doesn't. I don't really know what that's all about.

And yes, WBRA on 3 is still pretty much as awful as it was in May 2003. They've increased power to the east by 6 dB which helped, but it still drops out regularly and wouldn't be watchable on a large HD system due to frequent drop-outs. Strength-wise, it's as strong or stronger than the other Roanoke signals, but due to a higher noise floor, the MER rarely gets above 23 dB while WDBJ and the others max out my meter at 36 dB.

- 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 #11152 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 03:54 AM
Senior Member
 
difuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post


You're correct, the FCC planning factors assume an outdoor antenna. Of course, this is pretty reasonable since it's so hard to model signal level in buildings without a database of where every building is, what it's made of, how tall it is, etc. Assuming an antenna at 30 feet (which is what's always been recommended for TV) gets buildings out of the way in most cases, making the modeling more reasonable.

The low-VHF stations in urban areas are all still suffering, though not as much due to massive power increases. The high VHF stations have mostly dealt with it, though it's pretty obvious that more power would have helped a lot. But this is one of those things where certain high-VHF stations seem to do really well and others don't, and I've not been able to establish a pattern as to why. WSET seems to do pretty well, in general, while it seems WTVD doesn't. I don't really know what that's all about.



- Trip
Thanks again, Trip.
Just an observation: The difference between the frequencies of WRAL-TV and WRPX-TV is 198 MHz, the bottom of TV channel 11. Also an observation , several RDU FM radio stations sit at one half the center frequencies of channel 11. Just observations, I wouldn't want to make anything of them.
difuse is offline  
post #11153 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 05:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
I've definitely heard of FM harmonic issues but I think when I dug into it a few years ago, I ruled that out as a primary culprit. I also ruled out horizontal versus elliptical/circular antennas as the problem.

Interesting thought about WRAL and WRPX, though. I want to give that one more thought, but then, I've heard about WTVD reception issues all around, not just where WRPX is strong.

- 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 #11154 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 07:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jspENC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 4,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I thought the WTVD issue was worked out when they increased power and switched to circular polarization? I only found one person who had problems after the switch to circular. The problems I was aware of originally came from the Northwest and down towards the Fayetteville area.
jspENC is offline  
post #11155 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 07:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Pai: FCC Needs To Show More Love To Broadcasters

By JOHN EGGERTON, BROADCASTING & CABLE on May 06, 2014 9:27 am

Commissioner Ajit Pai was playing relationship counselor Monday as he advised a Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters audience at their convention in Hershey, Pa., that the FCC needs to give their one-to-many architecture more love and to treat them well in the incentive auction.

But he didn’t see the FCC ending its relationship with most media ownership regulations anytime soon.

“Unfortunately, the relationship between broadcasters and the FCC has become strained of late,” he told the crowd. “Based on what I heard at the NAB Show last month, I wonder if it’s time to call Dr. Phil and see if he is available to mediate.”

With no Dr. Phil in attendance, Pai stepped in with four areas where he suggested the relationship could be improved, mostly by changes on the FCC’s side.

1. Pai said the FCC needs to better appreciate broadcasting’s one-to-many architecture, something the National Association of Broadcasters has been saying for years.

“A one-to-one architecture is great for certain things, and a one-to-many architecture is better for others. For example, when the Philadelphia Eagles play the Kansas City Chiefs in next year’s Super Bowl, broadcast will be a much more efficient way to bring that clash of two football powerhouses to the American people than will broadband. And when I send gloating texts and tweets after Kansas City’s resounding victory, a broadband connection will be more useful,” he said.

Then there is public safety, when the power goes out, broadcasters stay on. He said he was all for the Internet, but not for the FCC trying to “push” broadcasters into moving to online delivery, saying it was not his business to tell them how to run theirs. “[F]or all of the talk of over-the-top programming, it’s still over-the-air programming that draws the largest crowds.”

2. The FCC needs to treat broadcasters fairly in the spectrum auction, he said. That means preserving a vibrant, free, over-the-air television system, not making broadcasters pay any relocation costs (i.e. thinking hard about a repacking plan that would cost more than the $1.75 billion the statute sets aside for those payments), and make it as easy as possible for broadcasters who do want to participate in the auction to do so, like making channel sharing rules easy to follow.

3. Reform AM radio.

4. “Modernize” media ownership rules. The FCC’s media ownership item, voted on in March “kicked the can of reform down the road yet again,” he said. But he added that, as a realist, he did not see the FCC modernizing the rules in the next couple of years.

“I sometimes hear people complain about certain regulations that they say are outdated and unfairly benefit broadcasters. But modernizing our rules can’t be a one-way street. We also need to reexamine all of the outdated rules that uniquely burden broadcasters, like our media ownership rules, and eliminate those as well. In short, our decisions should reflect a consistent regulatory philosophy instead of appearing to help or harm a particular segment of the industry.”

http://www.c2meworld.com/distributiondelivery/pai-fcc-needs-to-show-more-love-to-broadcasters/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pai-fcc-needs-to-show-more-love-to-broadcasters

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #11156 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Pai: FCC Needs To Show More Love To Broadcasters

By JOHN EGGERTON, BROADCASTING & CABLE on May 06, 2014 9:27 am

Commissioner Ajit Pai was playing relationship counselor Monday as he advised a Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters audience at their convention in Hershey, Pa., that the FCC needs to give their one-to-many architecture more love and to treat them well in the incentive auction.

But he didn’t see the FCC ending its relationship with most media ownership regulations anytime soon.

“Unfortunately, the relationship between broadcasters and the FCC has become strained of late,” he told the crowd. “Based on what I heard at the NAB Show last month, I wonder if it’s time to call Dr. Phil and see if he is available to mediate.”

...
1. Pai said the FCC needs to better appreciate broadcasting’s one-to-many architecture, something the National Association of Broadcasters has been saying for years.
....

Then there is public safety, when the power goes out, broadcasters stay on. He said he was all for the Internet, but not for the FCC trying to “push” broadcasters into moving to online delivery, saying it was not his business to tell them how to run theirs. “[F]or all of the talk of over-the-top programming, it’s still over-the-air programming that draws the largest crowds.”

2. The FCC needs to treat broadcasters fairly in the spectrum auction, he said. That means preserving a vibrant, free, over-the-air television system, ...

3. Reform AM radio.

4. “Modernize” media ownership rules. The FCC’s media ownership item, voted on in March “kicked the can of reform down the road yet again,” he said. But he added that, as a realist, he did not see the FCC modernizing the rules in the next couple of years.

http://www.c2meworld.com/distributiondelivery/pai-fcc-needs-to-show-more-love-to-broadcasters/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pai-fcc-needs-to-show-more-love-to-broadcasters

 

There is no way that the FCC can do anything good for the American people until the composition of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives changes.

 

The Supreme Court, in particular, has been on the side of the rich people who can afford to pay high prices for cable TV service, and the Reagan appointees have been devoted to minimizing the FCC's power to make sure that broadcast TV is wholesome.

 

In radio, the conservative courts have allowed large companies to buy up many radio stations and use them for propaganda purposes.

veedon is offline  
post #11157 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 02:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post


There is no way that the FCC can do anything good for the American people until the composition of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives changes.

The Supreme Court, in particular, has been on the side of the rich people who can afford to pay high prices for cable TV service, and the Reagan appointees have been devoted to minimizing the FCC's power to make sure that broadcast TV is wholesome.

In radio, the conservative courts have allowed large companies to buy up many radio stations and use them for propaganda purposes.

Remember, the man who said this one of Commissioners of the FCC not some lackey.

There are others who would vehemently disagree with your statement saying because of the Democratic led FCC, they are more worried about their wireless buddies than the American people's right to free TV.

This path you have taken has no winners here. For every liberal point you make, there is a someone who can counter with a conservative point.

There is no need to even go there.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #11158 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 02:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 44
 

 they are more worried about their wireless buddies than the American people's right to free TV

 

 

Whose buddies? Must be the buddies of the people in Congress, because it is Congress that ordered the spectrum auctions. The FCC just has to fulfill its role in implementing the law that Congress passed. And a lot of politicians no longer believe that "free TV" is important. They think people should pay for TV.

veedon is offline  
post #11159 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 03:49 PM
Senior Member
 
difuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

Whose buddies? Must be the buddies of the people in Congress, because it is Congress that ordered the spectrum auctions. The FCC just has to fulfill its role in implementing the law that Congress passed. And a lot of politicians no longer believe that "free TV" is important. They think people should pay for TV.
I believe "Congress" in general understands that most Americans do pay for TV. That, then , would make free OTA less important than it has been in the past. . 20 years ago DTV was seen by many as a great boost to OTA. The market since has said something else.. It will be hard to explain the importance of OTA to most politicians, when, it is obvious that a great many Americans do not know, or care, if it exists.
difuse is offline  
post #11160 of 11247 Old 05-06-2014, 04:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 678
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
I believe "Congress" in general understands that most Americans do pay for TV. That, then , would make free OTA less important than it has been in the past.

 

And yet, don't a lot of candidates depend on local broadcast stations for airtime for campaign ads and other political ads such as issue ads? (I believe the stations are required to give the candidates low ad rates.) I think the stations should get together and say that they will run issue ads only if the PACs and other organizations provide a full disclosure of who is behind the ads and who the big donors are. Basically, stand up and challenge the recent court rulings that permit anonymity and deception. Congress is not likely to require transparency, but the stations could be the good guys and tell the organizations that if they want to have access to the airwaves, they have to disclose who is behind the ads.

veedon is offline  
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception

User Tag List

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