Rochester, MN - HDTV - Page 107 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #3181 of 3336 Old 12-05-2011, 02:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sregener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 3,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by eherberg View Post

If the following follows through -- don't expect the FCC to come to your rescue regarding QAM anymore.

I wouldn't get overly excited about such things. The FCC has one master: Congress. And Congresspeople need to be elected, every 2 years, and they need to get their important messages as to why they need to be elected/re-elected out on the most watched stations. The 1996 rule overriding HOA restrictions on antennas had the fundamental 1st Amendment right to hear political speech as its foundation. If Charter starts making it difficult or impossible to receive the broadcast stations without a converter box, they will be required to supply that box for free. My guess is they'll support QAM.

The NTCA may not like it, they may not want it, but free television will exist as long as PAC money sustains it. It is hard to imagine the day that will end.
sregener is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #3182 of 3336 Old 12-10-2011, 08:08 AM
Newbie
 
schenckb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sregener View Post

Charter had better support QAM or the FCC will have their hide.

If what you mean is that Charter does not support your stealing of QAM channels, you would be correct, and posting such on a public forum would be most unwise.

Am I really stealing it? I have cable internet (no cable service, though) and these channels simply bleed through. I'm not intending to do anything illegal, I just figured that since these channels were so basic (NBC, CBS, ABS, etc, anyone with a decent antenna could get them), Charter didn't really care about encrypting them. Otherwise, why would they not be scrambled like everything else?

BTW, a rescan still does not find them. Is it possible they are being scrambled, or not available in QAM anymore?

I think I'm a few years late trying to understand all this
schenckb is offline  
post #3183 of 3336 Old 12-10-2011, 08:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sregener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 3,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If you are watching programming via Charter without paying for it, then yes, you are technically stealing it. They offer a lifeline service for $10/mo that gets you those channels legally, and then they would of course support your service if you experienced difficulty.

No doubt Charter could do more to lock things down, but an unlocked door is no excuse to take what's inside. Nor is the fact that some of what you were taking is available for free elsewhere a legal defense.
sregener is offline  
post #3184 of 3336 Old 12-10-2011, 08:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jjeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 9,864
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Apparently they do have the ability to trap out all channels and only allow internet. A relative in Brooklyn Center found this out when he tried to hook his modem cable directly to a new Samsung LCD and got no channels
He ended up installing a antenna in his attic and now gets more channels than he could have gotten with cable anyway. I was really surprised by this and thought at the least he would have gotten the lower analog or clear QAM locals.
jjeff is online now  
post #3185 of 3336 Old 12-10-2011, 11:31 AM
Newbie
 
schenckb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjeff View Post

Apparently they do have the ability to trap out all channels and only allow internet. A relative in Brooklyn Center found this out when he tried to hook his modem cable directly to a new Samsung LCD and got no channels
He ended up installing a antenna in his attic and now gets more channels than he could have gotten with cable anyway. I was really surprised by this and thought at the least he would have gotten the lower analog or clear QAM locals.

Yep, that's probably where I'm headed. I'd much sooner put up an antenna then pay them for any TV service. I don't want to steal, I just don't think you should have to pay for something that, with a little effort, you can get for free

Thanks, all!
schenckb is offline  
post #3186 of 3336 Old 12-21-2011, 12:22 PM
Newbie
 
schenckb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by schenckb View Post

Yep, that's probably where I'm headed. I'd much sooner put up an antenna then pay them for any TV service. I don't want to steal, I just don't think you should have to pay for something that, with a little effort, you can get for free

Thanks, all!

I talked to Charter today (just because I still don't really understand how these can just disappear). The tech told me that I am not breaking the law watching these stations because they are not able to scramble them by law (as was stated here). Certainly, I suppose they could filter the video somehow, but I don't think they can encode it or otherwise force me to get a box.

So, could there be a problem with my TV's QAM tuner? Is anyone else able to pick up TPT/KSMQ on QAM, and what channel do YOU see it on (I have the readout from silicondust in front of me)?

Oh, and I have an antenna in the car from a friend - will try hanging tonight....

thanks!
schenckb is offline  
post #3187 of 3336 Old 12-22-2011, 09:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Tobias Ziegler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The following are definitely coming in on clear QAM at this time:

2-1 TPT HD 1080i 16x9
2-2 TPT MN 480i 4x3
2-3 TPT Lif 480i 4x3

15-1 KSMQ DT 480i 4x3
15-2 KSMQ Wo 480i 4x3
15-3 KSMQ Cr 480i 4x3
15-4 KSMQ MN 480i 4x3

The channel numbers shown are how they are mapped on my TV.
Tobias Ziegler is offline  
post #3188 of 3336 Old 12-22-2011, 01:34 PM
Newbie
 
schenckb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobias Ziegler View Post

The following are definitely coming in on clear QAM at this time:

2-1 TPT HD 1080i 16x9
2-2 TPT MN 480i 4x3
2-3 TPT Lif 480i 4x3

15-1 KSMQ DT 480i 4x3
15-2 KSMQ Wo 480i 4x3
15-3 KSMQ Cr 480i 4x3
15-4 KSMQ MN 480i 4x3

The channel numbers shown are how they are mapped on my TV.

Do you have a real channel number for them? From everything I can find, it looks like they should be on 84-1 to 84-7 (3 TPT and 4 KSMQs).
schenckb is offline  
post #3189 of 3336 Old 12-22-2011, 01:48 PM
Newbie
 
schenckb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sregener View Post

I wouldn't get overly excited about such things. The FCC has one master: Congress. And Congresspeople need to be elected, every 2 years, and they need to get their important messages as to why they need to be elected/re-elected out on the most watched stations. The 1996 rule overriding HOA restrictions on antennas had the fundamental 1st Amendment right to hear political speech as its foundation. If Charter starts making it difficult or impossible to receive the broadcast stations without a converter box, they will be required to supply that box for free. My guess is they'll support QAM.

The NTCA may not like it, they may not want it, but free television will exist as long as PAC money sustains it. It is hard to imagine the day that will end.

I called Charter about this last night (again) since it bothers me that such specific channels would disappear. The folks in the TV service center were pretty much clueless, especially since I didn't have TV service (as expected, and certainly with good reason). BUT, she transferred me to internet support of all things and the woman there, after talking to her supervisor, said that I should be able to get that channel and they would be sending someone out to the lines to figure it out. I really can't quite understand why they would offer to do anything of the sort unless they did something just specifically to my reception recently.
schenckb is offline  
post #3190 of 3336 Old 12-26-2011, 08:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Tobias Ziegler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by schenckb View Post

Do you have a real channel number for them? From everything I can find, it looks like they should be on 84-1 to 84-7 (3 TPT and 4 KSMQs).

All seven of them are currently on QAM 77....I don't know their subchannels right now.
Tobias Ziegler is offline  
post #3191 of 3336 Old 01-16-2012, 07:18 PM
Member
 
tachmn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Back in a post on July 4, 2011 with subject Disaster! (Page 105) I relayed my antenna troubles. (Delhi VU-936SR snapped in two in November 2010. UHF section was dangling on twin lead going to the preamp until I climbed up the tower in the 20s to cut it loose and lower it down. Other than the break it was undamaged. Lowered the VHF section the following July and put up my old Radio Shack U-120 as a stop gap measure.)

Here is an update.

I managed to find some one inch inside dimension 1/8 inch thick aluminum square tubing at Rochester Welding up on US 63.

After trimming off the torn end of the UHF section I proceeded to slide it on. Took some convincing from Mr. Sledgehammer, but almost got it fully on. About an inch short of the first insulator.

The original thought was to join the antenna sections again to repair it. But ran into an impasse. The bolt joining the two VHF sections was rusted and could not get the nut off. While I was battling that, the VHF end turned into more of a problem. The antenna broke right at the brace joining the top and bottom booms. Would have to drill out the rivets, then figure out how to reattach the brace to different sized booms.

In the interim, based on the VHF reception from the RS U-120 on the top of the tower, decided to see what I would get with what I had. Drilled two holes for a U-bolt in the new tube and mounted the antenna on the ten foot tripod and aimed it north. I did manage to pull in 9 and 11. Hmmm.

I had a bad feeling another session with Mr. Sledgehammer trying to join the UHF and VHF sections was not going to work well. As the non-sledgehammer end of the UHF section was slightly crinkled. Had to saw the end off before reconnecting the UHF Power Zoom section.

Thus decided to go with just the UHF section.

Mast was 1 1/4 ID ~1/8 thick galvanized pipe on sale from Menards. Yes I know it is not a mast, but the masts I took down were bent from the wind. This pipe is thick and heavy. Cut to six foot length.

Could not track down the Delhi BBMB bearing, so went with Yaesu GS-065. Unfortunately its hole spacing is 60mm while the tower plate hole spacing is 3 inches. I wasn't about to haul up a drill 70 feet. Used a piece of pressure treated 2x8 instead. Drilled holes up to the bearing, then installed t-nuts to attach to the tower.

Gave up on the two bearing setup as my feet in clodhoppers would not fit in the tower with the mast in the center. The rotor would go on the bottom plate. But I had no rotor bracket. Settled on galvanized deck angles to bolt to the rotor and then to the tower. Fortunately I took lots of measurements on previous climbs to know where to drill the holes.

Installed the mast up from the bottom instead of trying to drop it in from the top. It is heavy enough I wasn't sure I would be able to handle it at odd angles. Plus it was at the end of my reach when standing on the level foot strut making it even more difficult.

The bearing comes with inserts to go between the bolts and the pipe to spread out the contact area. How on earth is one supposed to putz around with those 70 feet up without dropping all of them? Drilled tiny holes in the horizontal part, then strung stainless wire through the holes to wrap around the top bolt of the bearing to keep them in place until tightened down.

Installed the rotor. Measurements were accurate, everything fit. Made enough slack to allow the rotor to move back and forth and sideways to line up with the bearing. Which keeps the weight off the rotor.

Installed the antenna. Beforehand attached some aluminum angles to add additional bracing for the single u-bolt.

Stainless steel hardware throughout. I hate battling rusted nuts 70 feet up.

Then tried to center the pipe in the bearing. Even with wooden shims of the right thickness, that is a pain. I thought I had it close, but the rotor stopped working so I swapped it out. Having it inside the tower makes it much easier. Another attempt to center the mast. This time it worked better. But I need to research better centering techniques.

In a nutshell got everything I got before. 8, 9, 10, 11, even 12 KEYC was coming in at times. Can pick up high VHF with this setup. (At the time the new WEAU tower was not finished.)

Then it got colder and the rotor stopped working again. Tried the rotor I brought down, and it was still working. Decided to put the spare bearing on the deck overnight. Discovered they didn't use synthetic grease!!! Stiff as a board. For crying out loud. So on warmer days coaxed the antenna to La Crosse to get 25 and 19 for Packers stuff (that is, until that total fiasco on Sunday). A bit off axis for 8 so it is breaking up more. And Iowa 24 is at a bad angle, it has trouble coming in.

Put the U-120 on the tripod on the ground and aimed it north, using the rotor I brought down. Get the Cities stations that way. Menards had sales on the RCA antennas. Evaluated the biggest one (ANT3038XR) in case the UHF remnant on the tower broke apart. Its UHF performance was worse than the U-120 so discontinued using it.

Will need to investigate synthetic grease, soon, in time for below zero tests.

Attachment shows the UHF remnant with the UHF Power Zoom, the additional bracing, the bearing, the 2x8 below it and the rotor inside the tower.

Over 20 hours of tower time to finally get to this point. And more to come when it is time to swap bearings. Ugh.

0 signal strength on the new 38 WEAU, so way off axis on it. I never had a problem with their transitional UHF before they went digital on 13. So with the Packers one and done, I risked losing 19 and tried to move the antenna while the temperature was around freezing. It took a bit of coaxing back and forth, but I finally got it to move enough to pick up WEAU. Hooray! Basically 40s for signal strength on the DigitalStream converter. 19 as expected is now spotty, but rest of La Crosse is fine (but weaker) plus all the locals (24 off the back is better now).

This two antenna setup will get me through the winter, barring complications.

I am now thinking when the time comes is to get the biggest UHF yagi I can find. Based on my previous two UHF yagis, I still should be able to pick up VHF high.
LL
tachmn is offline  
post #3192 of 3336 Old 01-17-2012, 03:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sregener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 3,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tachmn View Post

I am now thinking when the time comes is to get the biggest UHF yagi I can find. Based on my previous two UHF yagis, I still should be able to pick up VHF high.

Having owned the U120, it was the worst UHF performer of my batch. Fine for locals (3,6,10,15,24,47) but useless for stuff further out. The UHF section of my Winegard HD-7084 was better, the UHF of the HD-8200 was better still, but the overall champion is the AntennasDirect 91XG. You won't find a better antenna at any price. It does receive hi-VHF off axis (about 45 degrees off, in my experience) but in my location, it was not reliable enough for KTTC-DT-10 (I am physically blocked by a large hill.) I added a Winegard YA-17-13 (hi-VHF only) and it is flawless. I'd strongly recommend the pair for your consideration.

Almost every rotor out there is the same cheap China clone. They typically burn out within a year. Only the Channel Master 9521A seems to be different, and mine has lasted nearly a decade. You can get better rotors if you're willing to spend $300-$500 for a Ham-radio rotor, but under $100, that still seems to be the best bargain.

Good luck!
sregener is offline  
post #3193 of 3336 Old 01-17-2012, 09:16 PM
Member
 
tachmn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sregener View Post

Having owned the U120, it was the worst UHF performer of my batch. Fine for locals (3,6,10,15,24,47) but useless for stuff further out. The UHF section of my Winegard HD-7084 was better, the UHF of the HD-8200 was better still, but the overall champion is the AntennasDirect 91XG. You won't find a better antenna at any price. It does receive hi-VHF off axis (about 45 degrees off, in my experience) but in my location, it was not reliable enough for KTTC-DT-10 (I am physically blocked by a large hill.) I added a Winegard YA-17-13 (hi-VHF only) and it is flawless. I'd strongly recommend the pair for your consideration.

Actually my experience is the exact opposite. I swapped out the RS U-120 for the 91XG on the tower. I climbed back up and swapped them back as the performance was worse. Plus I don't like the construction, all the plastic and flimsy. I had doubts it would last in that environment. The U-120 ten feet off the ground is picking up the Cities.

Quote:


Almost every rotor out there is the same cheap China clone. They typically burn out within a year. Only the Channel Master 9521A seems to be different, and mine has lasted nearly a decade.

I haven't had any better luck with Channel Masters. The environment is too brutal. Which is why I am hoping the bearing will increase the lifespan.

Quote:


You can get better rotors if you're willing to spend $300-$500 for a Ham-radio rotor, but under $100, that still seems to be the best bargain.

That and they're all five wire. The house is setup with three wire in the walls. Short lifespans is the reason I moved the rotor into the tower, to make it easier to swap out. I went through a tricky procedure to swap out the rotor when the old antenna was still intact. (A year before the break.) My feet don't fit at the very top, so I hauled up a foot rest made out of scrap 2x10 and clamped it to the bottom rotor plate. Then stepped off the tower (really deep knee bend required) onto the foot rest. That got me the reach I needed. (I was tethered to the mast below the rotor.) With a jig lifted the antenna and rotor off the bottom mast, rotated 90° and put back on the lower mast. Swapped rotors and reversed the process. No problems, but my knees are getting too old to pull that off more than once...
LL
tachmn is offline  
post #3194 of 3336 Old 01-18-2012, 05:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sregener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 3,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tachmn View Post

I swapped out the RS U-120 for the 91XG on the tower. I climbed back up and swapped them back as the performance was worse. Plus I don't like the construction, all the plastic and flimsy. I had doubts it would last in that environment. The U-120 ten feet off the ground is picking up the Cities.

Something must have been horribly wrong then. The U120 has a gain of around 10dB, the 91XG is closer to 17 (every 3dB representing a doubling of gain.). The front-to-back ratio (a key measure of the directionality of the antenna) of the U120 is very low as well. I had concerns about the durability of the 91XG as well, but field reports so far have been very favorable, and mine still works great after several years of service. No antenna lasts forever (they are supposed to be replaced every 10 years due to corrosion) and flex sometimes proves more durable than rigid.

If you are having such good results with the U120, it suggests overload may have been the problem with the 91XG. Without a proper dB meter, it is impossible to verify, but there is such a thing as too much signal. And directionality isn't all it used to be, since most modern tuners handle static Multipath just fine. If a higher gain, higher directional antenna like the 91XG didn't work well for you, I don't know what longer antenna you're going to find that is superior to what you have now. By definition, the longer the antenna, the more directional and higher the gain (two ways of saying the same thing) it will have. The Winegard PR-9032 might fit the bill, but its performance is dramatically lower than the 91XG.
sregener is offline  
post #3195 of 3336 Old 02-02-2012, 05:47 AM
Senior Member
 
Tobias Ziegler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10


Well, 3ABN is on the air on 38.

'guess that makes it official. No WEAU for us.
Tobias Ziegler is offline  
post #3196 of 3336 Old 02-02-2012, 06:17 PM
Member
 
tachmn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
And just after WEAU got their new tower operational. Grrr.

Is there a way to officially contest a low power station interfering with a high power station?
tachmn is offline  
post #3197 of 3336 Old 02-02-2012, 06:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mattdp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 1,256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This sucks. Why why why can't 3ABN occupy some actually vacant space on the spectrum? (How the network is still in business baffles me. They belong to a small cult-denomination and don't seem to be actively pushing product or anything).

I would think anyway that WEAU would be somewhat pissed about their presence. I'll have to look up the FCC file, but I would assume anyway that the signal would travel 20-30 miles or more, which (IMO) is sure to mess with WEAU's designated coverage area.

In short - I would think that it's in WEAU's interest to bring it up with the FCC.
mattdp is online now  
post #3198 of 3336 Old 02-02-2012, 08:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Tobias Ziegler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
[quote=mattdp;21589271]

I would think anyway that WEAU would be somewhat pissed about their presence. [quote]

doubt it....it looks like 3ABN got their license before WEAU even applied for 38.
Tobias Ziegler is offline  
post #3199 of 3336 Old 02-02-2012, 08:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
WEAU got K38LE-D to file for a displacement, so we will see what happens in Rochester.

- 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 online now  
post #3200 of 3336 Old 02-02-2012, 08:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 19
looking at the coverage maps on rabbitears there is some areas where both stations are technically in the coverage area

Wabasha/Lake City/Red Wing area

WEAU contour map
http://www.rabbitears.info/contour.p...=1481426&map=Y

3ABN rochester map
http://www.rabbitears.info/contour.p...=1426626&map=Y
unclehonkey is offline  
post #3201 of 3336 Old 02-03-2012, 07:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sregener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 3,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And now we see the wisdom in cutting the television frequencies with the digital revolution. If it is this bad here, imagine somewhere where the cities are more densely packed, like the Boston-NYC-Philadelphia-Baltimore-DC corridor. If hi-VHF had worked well, we'd be in good shape. As it is, VHF has proven to be problematic for digital reception. WEAU chose to strengthen their core coverage area, where people had no end of problems with their signal, at the expense of long-distance reception.

It remains a mystery to me why more translators do not choose lo-VHF, where power requirements are almost nil and coverage would be quite good in a small coverage area.

I do not believe there are any "open" frequencies for 3ABN to use, except for 2-6, though there are probably many that are more open than 38.
sregener is offline  
post #3202 of 3336 Old 02-03-2012, 07:09 PM
Member
 
LakeFlambeau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester MN/Ladysmith WI
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

WEAU got K38LE-D to file for a displacement, so we will see what happens in Rochester.

- Trip

Can you please explain what that means?
I have been enjoying getting WEAU in Rochester with a great
signal on 38 since they went back on the air with the
new tower.
Boom.... two days ago, competely gone.

I remember someone saying awhile ago, that this
group would never go on the air.
I guess they did go on the air.

Does this mean they change frequency, or have to lower their power?
Unless they change frequency, I am screwed in Rochester.
Any power at all will wipe me out.

Thanks in advance for an explanation of what this means.....
LakeFlambeau is offline  
post #3203 of 3336 Old 02-03-2012, 10:35 PM
Member
 
tachmn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeFlambeau View Post

Does this mean they change frequency, or have to lower their power?
Unless they change frequency, I am screwed in Rochester.
Any power at all will wipe me out.

Thanks in advance for an explanation of what this means.....

From http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/video/f...FactSheet.html

Q. I HAVE HEARD THAT LPTV STATIONS HAVE SECONDARY SPECTRUM PRIORITY TO FULL-SERVICE STATIONS. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

A. It means that LPTV stations:

(1) May not cause interference to the off-air reception of existing full-service TV, Class A TV stations and DTV stations (LPTV stations must correct any interference caused),

(2) Must accept interference from full-service stations,

(3) Must yield to increase in facilities of existing full-service stations and

(4) Must yield to new full-service stations, where interference occurs.

(Emphasis added on 4 by me) Which seems to mean even if K38NN-D had their application in first, they have to yield to WEAU. Notice there is no mention of DMA (Designated Market Area). Rochester is in the DMA of KTTC not WEAU.

I think the next step is to let WEAU know about this situation. Their website mentions "For less urgent matters that need attention and response:" to contact the chief engineer at ron.wiedemeier@weau.com.

I think the FCC is just incompetent on actual field performance of DTV. The fiasco of limiting VHF DTV to a measly 20kW. If VHF DTV was the full 100kW like it was on analog, I doubt there would be any of the reported reception problems. (I never had a problem with analog WEAU or the transitional digital UHF. But I only got the digital VHF about 50% of the time. And that was when my monster Delhi antenna was still in one piece.) And allowing a LPTV station on the same channel as a million watt station only 90 miles away.

I will be composing an email this weekend, as there are family considerations to be able to receive WEAU news.
tachmn is offline  
post #3204 of 3336 Old 02-04-2012, 03:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sregener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 3,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tachmn View Post

I think the FCC is just incompetent on actual field performance of DTV. The fiasco of limiting VHF DTV to a measly 20kW. If VHF DTV was the full 100kW like it was on analog, I doubt there would be any of the reported reception problems. (I never had a problem with analog WEAU or the transitional digital UHF. But I only got the digital VHF about 50% of the time. And that was when my monster Delhi antenna was still in one piece.) And allowing a LPTV station on the same channel as a million watt station only 90 miles away.

I agree that the FCC flubbed VHF power ratings, but keep in mind that analog power ratings were a maximum (for a pure black screen.). With digital, 50kw would be pretty close to equivalent because it is almost exactly half zeros and half ones. But that's for VHF lo. VHF high was 316kw, so 158kw would be about right... I don't think 20-50 would make much difference in coverage, a few miles at most, but a 7x decrease in power is just too much.

3ABN will obviously have to downgrade their power to the east. Not so sure about the west. Anyone have a proposed channel they should move to that would not have a co-channel within 90 miles?
sregener is offline  
post #3205 of 3336 Old 02-04-2012, 06:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeFlambeau View Post

Can you please explain what that means?

K38LE is the Iowa PBS station in Lansing, IA: http://www.rabbitears.info/contour.p...=1485090&map=Y

Because of WEAU, they have sought displacement to from channel 38 to channel 39 from the FCC.

- 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 online now  
post #3206 of 3336 Old 02-04-2012, 10:06 AM
Member
 
tachmn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sregener View Post

Anyone have a proposed channel they should move to that would not have a co-channel within 90 miles?

I have never observed anything on 37 or 39 (WEAU's transitional UHF?) even with tropo. Can't remember if I have observed anything on 41. [Memory for 41 was jogged today (2/4) when KTIV was picked up on a scan]

36 is KAAL, 40 is Ion out of the Cities. The latter pops in some of the time, but if they finally move to Shoreview from St Cloud then it will be much more solid.

Being adjacent to 38 shouldn't be a problem as WUCW 23 on UHF 22 and tpt 2-3 on UHF 23 don't have problems.

Below 37 it is pretty solid. Don't want to lose 31 as that is WFXS tropo'ing in from time to time. I didn't know that RTV (55-3) was still on the air. Even WSAW popped in on VHF 7 on my Delhi UHF remnant.

(Side note, K38NN-D has a couple of audio only channels. My Digitalstream DTX9950 picks them up fine. But what surprised me is my Zenith DTT901 also picks them up. I didn't think it had audio only capability as it can't get KYIN's 18-99 IRIS audio service.)
tachmn is offline  
post #3207 of 3336 Old 02-04-2012, 12:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Tobias Ziegler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tachmn View Post

I have never observed anything on 37 or 39

You're not likely to ever see anything over the air on 37. It interferes with radio astronomy. I don't think its assigned (at least for significant power use) in Canada, USA, or northern parts of Mexico.
Tobias Ziegler is offline  
post #3208 of 3336 Old 02-04-2012, 12:19 PM
Member
 
agus0103's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Brainerd, MN
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Channel 37 has been used exclusively for radio astronomy for nearly 50 years, so you're not going to be seeing any TV station there.

Looking at a list of stations within 90 miles of the transmitter used by the 3ABN station on channel 38, channel 44 looks to be wide open. The only thing on that channel within a 90 mile radius is an application from mobile broadband company (and spectrum squatter, IMO) Landover for a 1 kW "station" in "Albert Leo, MN."
agus0103 is offline  
post #3209 of 3336 Old 02-04-2012, 02:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeFlambeau View Post

Can you please explain what that means?
I have been enjoying getting WEAU in Rochester with a great
signal on 38 since they went back on the air with the
new tower.
Boom.... two days ago, competely gone.

in a nutshell because WEAU is full powered station it gets priority over the low power station. The LPTV station has to move channels.

Even though the LPTV station had 38 first the "I'm bigger than you so I get dibs" rule applies
unclehonkey is offline  
post #3210 of 3336 Old 02-05-2012, 03:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sregener's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 3,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tachmn View Post

Being adjacent to 38 shouldn't be a problem as WUCW 23 on UHF 22 and tpt 2-3 on UHF 23 don't have problems.

Being adjacent is not a problem if the antennas are in the same location. If they are separated by even a few miles, they can interfere. That's probably why 39 was not an option as it would cause interference with 40 out of the Cities.

Negative, Ghost-Rider, the pattern is full.
sregener 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