The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread - Page 28 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #811 of 7370 Old 04-11-2008, 01:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nitewatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middletown, Ohio
Posts: 6,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

Looks like WBDT just made a mistake in their DTR filing.

Yeah, I was "assuming" that, but didn't want to jump to any conclusions ....

Anyway, thanks for the info Trip+Larry on some of the others which haven't filed CP's yet ...

Good to know WBDT isn't the only one ...

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by TiVoFishMan View Post

Just a point of note:

In New Orleans:
  • WDSU-NBC Channel 6 (analog) 100kW.
  • WRBH (FM Radio Station) 88.3 51 kW.

Looks like WRBH-FM and WBSN-FM are co-located with WDSU-TV/transmit from WDSU's stick. Perhaps that's why FCC allowed it in their case. Found some info on that in following article :

http://www.fybush.com/sites/2005/site-050902.html

Quote:


.... The year was 1982.

I didn't check it for accuracy, but interestingly(if that's a word, LOL) enough, this website reports WRBH-FM 88.3 first signed on Sept. 12, 1982 (just search the page's text for WRBH to find that little tidbit) :

http://tenwatts.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_archive.html

Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #812 of 7370 Old 04-11-2008, 10:10 PM
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
I thought this article was interesting in light of the ERP levels for upper VHF that we have discussed.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0001/t.12659.html

To quote:

Quote:


Only six high-VHF stations have been allotted 100 kW or more. In addition to the stations in California and Florida mentioned earlier, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas have one station with 100 kW or higher power station. Only 98 stations have been allotted powers above 25 kW, while 145 have power less than 12.5 kW. Most allotments are at power levels between 12.5 kW and 25 kW.

I have noticed that quite a few stations are being granted CP's for non-directional antennas at lower ERP's. Hopefully, this is a prelude to ERP increases later. The WTOC example is almost comical, with them having to stay within 5 miles of an Appendix B boundary that is over the ocean. See page 7 of their exhibit.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/f...ibit_id=632779
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #813 of 7370 Old 04-12-2008, 04:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
TiVoFishMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One half mile due west of the Abita Brewery
Posts: 604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitewatchman View Post



Looks like WRBH-FM and WBSN-FM are co-located with WDSU-TV/transmit from WDSU's stick. Perhaps that's why FCC allowed it in their case. Found some info on that in following article :

http://www.fybush.com/sites/2005/site-050902.html

[/url]

Old data, partially.

After Katrina destroyed the WDSU transmitter building, WBSN moved to the Spectra-Site tower in Algeirs (where almost all the New Orleans licensed commercial FM stations transmit from).

FCC Record for WBSN:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?state...2=&EW=W&size=9

They're currently running at 11 kW on the construction permit listed at the bottom of that page.

This is the area map of the Spectra-Site tower (from clicking on the link for the construction permit):

http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapg...ht=0.5&wid=0.5


And the post-Katrina service contour of WBSN:

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-serv...FM1134742.html

WRBH on the other hand did, indeed, share WDSU's temporary Go-Mini trailer and are still colocated with them on their tower.
TiVoFishMan is offline  
post #814 of 7370 Old 04-13-2008, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nitewatchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middletown, Ohio
Posts: 6,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiVoFishMan View Post

They're currently running at 11 kW on the construction permit listed at the bottom of that page.

I'll take your word for it, however I don't actually see a license to cover app from them for that facility yet.

The current record I can find publicily available on FCC site seems to indicate they are operating with a 5KW ERP STA, FCC file # BSTA - 20051012AAP, which is the first "application" entry at the FM query link you provided -- Note that both the first "application"(STA really) and "CP" entry for them at FCC's FM query show the signal as being entirely vertically polarized, no Horizontal Polarization ...

At Following link is most recent STA extension application request from WBSN-FM, which was granted by FCC on 3/28/2008, but note that it was filed by WBSN on 9/27/07, and of course as you indicate is the case, they very well may be covering the 11KW ERP CP (Vertical Polarization only) by now :

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws....&fac_num=53677

Note that in section I, #3, "purpose", it says it is for :

Extension of Existing Engineering STA File Number: BSTA - 20051012AAP

Also an exhibit, the text of which is included in the form itself, near bottom of form at link above it says : (especially note the info in 2nd paragraph, and of most interest, the portion I have bolded) :

Quote:
Originally Posted by from WBSN STA extension app info View Post

Description: REASONS FOR EXTENSION

THE FACILITIES OF WBSN-FM WERE SEVERLY DAMAGED BY HURRICANE KATRINA ON AUGUST 29, 2005. AT THAT TIME THE STATION CEASED OPERATIONS. THIS STA WAS GRANTED ON OCTOBER 27, 2005 FOR TEMPORARY OPERATION FROM A DIFFERENT TOWER AND AT DIFFERENT PARAMETERS FROM ITS LICENSE. HOWEVER, DUE TO EQUIPMENT AND TOWER CREW ISSUES, WBSN-FM DID NOT RESUME OPERATIONS UNTIL JANUARY 30, 2006.

IN ORDER TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE, WBSN-FM'S TRANSMITTER AND ANTENNA WERE PREVIOUSLY LOCATED AT THE SAME LOCATION AS THE LOCAL CHANNEL 6 TELEVISION STATION. STATION MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN IN REGULAR CONTACT WITH THE CHANNEL 6 ENGINEERING PERSONNEL REGARDING THE RESTORATION OF THE TRANSMITTER BUILDINGS AND UTILITIES. AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, AND WITH THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE CHANNEL 6 INTERFERENCE ISSUE IN FEBRUARY 2009, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR WBSN TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION WITH UPGRADED FACILITIES. TO THIS END, WBSN-FM FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION, FILE NO. BPED-20070906AEJ.

THEREFORE, WE REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF THIS STA FOR 180 DAYS. TO ASSURE THAT ANOTHER STA WILL NOT BE NECESSARY BEFORE APPROVAL IS GRANTED FOR THE MINOR MODIFICATION AND WBSN IS ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THE UPGRADE.

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

And follows is The most recent CP MOD app filing from WSBN-FM. This hasn't been granted yet, It is a filing from Early Feb 2008, and it a bit newer than the CP mod filing mentioned in the info on the STA. This is the current "application" listing at bottom of page at the FM query for them - and is for changing to an antenna with Circular polarization rather than with the current CP (or STA) with vertical polarization only. - It has yet to be granted by FCC :

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws....ility_id=53677

And "the Channel 6 consent" for this, WSBN-FM's most recent FCC application :

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/f...ibit_id=615299

And a technical exhibit attached to the application (Includes some info on interference agreement with WDSU, info on the Circular polarization/etc) :

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/f...ibit_id=615300

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

Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
post #815 of 7370 Old 04-14-2008, 04:35 AM
 
rrrrrroger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Just because a station was on a channel in analog didn't mean it would fit in the digital world, even though that is not what the FCC told stations when all of this started 10 years ago. As time went on, the FCC continued to tighten interference restrictions to the point that for most stations, the power levels they would have to run on their old analog channels would not cover their markets, so they had to stay on their temporary digital channels.....

.....those UHF stations who got lucky to get a VHF high digital assignment, now have first right of refusal over the older analog stations on the same channel because of the tighter restrictions on interference. The "first in rule." In this case, the first in rule applies to digital stations, and older analog stations converting to digital on the same channel now have to show interference protection to the newer digital stations cutting many older stations coverage considerably.

In other words:

The FCC royally screwed up.
rrrrrroger is offline  
post #816 of 7370 Old 04-18-2008, 07:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
afiggatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sterling, VA
Posts: 4,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For those who have not checked, Falcon_77 posted an updated version of his DTV analysis spreadsheet last night. It has been updated to include the current licensed ERPs for all the analog VHF stations. When I collecting some of the numbers for Falcon_77, I was surprised at how many long established VHF stations are at the maximum 100 kW for low VHF or 316 kW for upper VHF. Many of the 100 kW low VHF stations managed to get strong UHF ERPs of 700 to 1000 kW. However, the digital ERPs for the upper VHF stations doing a flash cut back to the their VHF channel vary over a wide range with many of them quite low because of interference concerns with UHF stations that managed to grab a upper VHF slot. It may be that as a group the long time upper VHF stations will be the ones who suffer the greatest coverage loss in the post-transition period unless the FCC grants them higher broadcast power levels before next February.

BTW, came across this news snippet: "A total of 1030 full-power television stations have reported to the Federal Communications Commission that they have finished every aspect of their DTV transition, FCC chairman Kevin Martin has told a Senate committee." Full article at http://broadcastengineering.com/news...finished_0417/.
afiggatt is offline  
post #817 of 7370 Old 04-23-2008, 08:13 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
Perhaps this will change in August, but for the moment, some stations are being constricted by the "5 mile" rule as it relates to their Appendix B allotment. Many stations which are going back to their analog Non-Directional antenna are having this problem where Appendix B assumed a side-mount.

Here is a partial listing of stations, which do not seem to be anywhere near replicating their analog coverage contour:

Station - 2009 DTV ERP/Ch vs. Analog ERP/Ch

KDLO - 0.88kW for 3 vs. 100kW for 3

KXMA - 50kW for 19 vs. 100kW for 2
KENW - 82.6kW/32 vs. 100kW/3
KTVO - 87kW/33 100kW/3
KITV - 85kW/40 100kW/4
WTOM - 78kW/35 100kW/4
KWSE - 53.9kW/51 79.4kW/4
KFVE - 5.4kW/23 95.5kW/5
KLEI - 2.5kW/25 52.5kW/6
WLUC - 83kW/35 100kW/6
KFDM - 50kW/21 100kW/6

WDAM - 79kW/28 316kW/7
KMTF - 43.4kW/29 217kW/10

Of course, there is much more to replication than matching contours, especially for the Low-VHF band. More to come later after I get caught up on the 301 & 340 filings.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #818 of 7370 Old 04-23-2008, 08:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
I can explain away some of those.

KENW was the defacto PBS for Roswell, Hobbs, and Carlsbad because of the wide coverage for VHF 3. KENW is not attempting to cover those cities with its main signal anymore; they have UHF digital translators in each city now. Each of those translators is sitting on a vacant non-commercial allocation, and my guess is that after the transition they'll be upgraded into "full-power" facilities.

KITV transmits from such a low height (top of a hotel I think?) that it's not worth the extra power most likely. 1000 kW would probably cause many more multipath problems than low signal problems it has now.

KFVE has been held up by their landlord, who apparently will not allow them to boost power. No idea what's happening here.

- 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 #819 of 7370 Old 04-23-2008, 05:54 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

KENW was the defacto PBS for Roswell, Hobbs, and Carlsbad because of the wide coverage for VHF 3. KENW is not attempting to cover those cities with its main signal anymore; they have UHF digital translators in each city now. Each of those translators is sitting on a vacant non-commercial allocation, and my guess is that after the transition they'll be upgraded into "full-power" facilities.

The transition may reveal that more translators will be needed or SFN's, if we can get them to work on a broad scale here. Low-VHF seems to have been a bit of a crutch at times.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #820 of 7370 Old 04-23-2008, 06:40 PM
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
KUSA (Denver, NBC) has been granted a CP on 9 for only 6kW, vs. the 39.6kW allotment. However, the HAAT has been increased to 352m vs. 318m.

Looking at the contour plot (page 6), it seems that this is another case of not being able to exceed the 5 mile Appendix B limit, but only at an odd angle:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/f...ibit_id=634645
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #821 of 7370 Old 04-23-2008, 08:02 PM
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
WBBM's application for 8kW on 12 was granted today. This is right up to the maximum 5 mile contour extension currently allowed. The allotment was 3.2kW and a petition to increase this to 13.6kW had previously been denied.

Here is their exhibit for further info:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/f...ibit_id=629658
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #822 of 7370 Old 04-24-2008, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa (We'll be back)
Posts: 2,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A couple of soon-to-be low-V stations serving Iowa got a bump this week:

- WOI Ames-Des Moines (channel 5): from 3.9 kW to 8.2 kW.
- WHBF Rock Island, IL-Quad Cities (channel 4): from 3.88 kW to 8.7 kW.

(Links above point to the applications, which are listed as "granted.")

In both cases, the stations want to use their current non-directional analog antennas to provide DT service, and their owner believes the power hikes are necessary to replicate their analog services.

Views are strictly my own unless otherwise noted.
"ItÂs looking more like Y2K than the Bay of Pigs." - FCC Commissioner Adelstein, 6-13-09, on the DTV switch
dline is offline  
post #823 of 7370 Old 04-24-2008, 01:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
A new channel will be necessary to replicate their analog service.

But Citadel will find out the hard way I suppose.

- 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 #824 of 7370 Old 04-24-2008, 10:53 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

A new channel will be necessary to replicate their analog service.

But Citadel will find out the hard way I suppose.

No doubt.

KDLO/3 had to reduce their ERP to 0.88kW, from the 3.7kW allotment to stay within the 5 mile contour expansion limit. Worrying about "expansions" beyond 5 miles seems silly for Low-VHF, when, A) there are so few stations there and, B) inner areas of the contour may be where reception is most difficult (and in need of additional power). Is there really a "City Grade" for Low-VHF?
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #825 of 7370 Old 05-01-2008, 07:58 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
What is the easiest way to find out the input power of a station? I want to compare some Low-VHF with High-VHF and UHF stations to verify what is typical. I have 5, 10 and 22dB, but I would like to back these with some real data. It's probably best that I look at non-directional antennas only as I would expect directional antennas to vary widely.

Looking at the following authorization for WPVI, is DBK what I am looking for?

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/p...es/1231472.pdf

Thanks,
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #826 of 7370 Old 05-01-2008, 03:05 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

Looking at the following authorization for WPVI, is DBK what I am looking for?

I should have known that dBk was just like dBm, except for kW and not mW. Thank you.

It seems TPO (of a transmitter) data is not as easily obtained as I had hoped. I can probably back into it from some of the CP filings, but I won't be doing this for more than perhaps 50 stations, to avoid more mission creep on the spreadsheet.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #827 of 7370 Old 05-01-2008, 03:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Stations do not report TPO until they file for the License to Cover. The CP's only require ERP, antenna height and pattern and coverage area.

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 #828 of 7370 Old 05-02-2008, 01:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Kenney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 2,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 27
For a specified ERP, the TPO will vary from station to station due to differences in loss due to length of coax and the gain of antenna. There are too many variables to work with the transmitter power when comparing stations.

Larry
SF

My complete SF Bay Area DTV Station Lists: http://www.choisser.com/sfonair.html
Lots of Broadcasting links and information: http://www.choisser.com/broadcast.html

Check out photos and info on my antennas: http://www. larrykenney.com/tvantennas.html

Larry Kenney is offline  
post #829 of 7370 Old 05-02-2008, 03:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kenney View Post

For a specified ERP, the TPO will vary from station to station due to differences in loss due to length of coax and the gain of antenna. There are too many variables to work with the transmitter power when comparing stations.

Larry
SF

Example is my station. For years we had a TPO of 25 kW for 316 kW ERP. We changed antennas, but kept the same coverage area, same ERP but because the antenna was a different gain factor, the TPO went up to 32 kW. Tracking TPO for something like this is not very useful.

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 #830 of 7370 Old 05-02-2008, 12:55 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kenney View Post

For a specified ERP, the TPO will vary from station to station due to differences in loss due to length of coax and the gain of antenna. There are too many variables to work with the transmitter power when comparing stations.

This makes me feel better as I looked at about 8 stations last night and was throwing up my hands after a couple hours of analysis.

Perhaps comparing antenna gain is of some use, but with varying feedline lengths, etc., TPO is probably not worth tracking.

Comparing UHF vs. VHF operating costs is not as simple a task as I thought it would be.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #831 of 7370 Old 05-03-2008, 04:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

This makes me feel better as I looked at about 8 stations last night and was throwing up my hands after a couple hours of analysis.

Perhaps comparing antenna gain is of some use, but with varying feedline lengths, etc., TPO is probably not worth tracking.

Comparing UHF vs. VHF operating costs is not as simple a task as I thought it would be.

A good rule of thumb for operating costs can go something like this. Many VHF high stations will have a TPO between 1 and 8 kW for ERPs of 10-50kw digital power. That will equate to about 1 to 5k dollars a month. Many UHF stations in the 500 to 1000kW range will run between 25 to 75 kW TPO that will run between 10 to 25k dollars a month. Every station is different, but that should give you some idea of what stations are looking at paying to operate the different transmitters. The big cost is in maintenance costs. VHF high transmitters will be solid state rigs that will have extremely low yearly maintenance costs of $500 or less while tube UHF transmitters will be in the 7 to 15k a year maintenance cost range depending on how many IOTs the transmitter runs considering average cost of a a single IOT is $35k with a life span of 4 to 6 years averaged over those 4-6 years.

Remember that a 25kw TPO analog VHF high transmitter will only do about 5 kw TPO digital so the power bill will be similar even though the RF power levels look quite different.

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 #832 of 7370 Old 05-03-2008, 07:56 PM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

The big cost is in maintenance costs. VHF high transmitters will be solid state rigs that will have extremely low yearly maintenance costs of $500 or less while tube UHF transmitters will be in the 7 to 15k a year maintenance cost range

Thanks.

Are there solid-state UHF transmitters as well?
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #833 of 7370 Old 05-03-2008, 09:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Thomas Desmond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Plano, TX, USA
Posts: 2,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

Are there solid-state UHF transmitters as well?

Yes, there are -- but solid state is limited to lower power levels at UHF. Getting really high power levels out of solid-state devices is just more difficult (and expensive) than is the case for lower frequencies. As solid-state technology advances that will change, but it doesn't look like we're there yet.
Thomas Desmond is offline  
post #834 of 7370 Old 05-04-2008, 05:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

Thanks.

Are there solid-state UHF transmitters as well?

Yes, but the cost difference is huge right now. A 15kW UHF solid state will run you the same as a 50 kW tube transmitter. Of course if if all you need is 15 kW or less, then yes, a solid state UHF is something to look at. If you need more than that, it isn't cost effective. You would have to pay three times the amount of a tube transmitter for a solid state for the same power and you can never make up the difference in price with the reduced maintenance cost over the life of the transmitter. Costs are coming down, but they aren't there yet. It might be another 10 or 15 years before that happens. VHF hit that break even point about 15 years ago so it is cheaper to buy a VHF solid state than a tube. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone makes a VHF tube rig anymore because of the associated costs.

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 #835 of 7370 Old 05-04-2008, 04:13 PM
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
I posted an updated spreadsheet. The 301, 340 and 387 filings are current to 5/1. Also, the analog ERP's have been finished.

A few notes:

WCES - PBS - Augusta, GA - 6 - has been granted a CP for 45kW on 6, though their pattern remains very directional. It was previously allotted 30kW.

WDAF - FOX - Kansas City, MO - 34 - has filed for a License to Cover and filed an updated 387 noting they are now running their post-transition (PT) facility

KUTP - MyN - Phoenix, AZ - 26 - also filed for License to Cover and is operating their PT facility.

My next project is to begin tracking Licenses to Cover, so I can start turning the blue CP grants to X's (operating PT facility) as they occur. I discovered the two above from their 387 filings.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #836 of 7370 Old 05-04-2008, 04:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
According to posts on the Fresno local thread, KAIL analog 53 digital RF 7 is mapping to virtual channel 7-1 and a subchannel on 7-2, not 53-1 and 53-2. I thought the FCC required all digital channels to map to their analog channel number. Does KAIL have special permission to map to their RF digital channel number, or are they doing this illegally. I think a station should be allowed to map to their RF digital channel number if they want to. Here in Bakersfield, KERO analog channel 23 digital RF channel 10 wants to map to 10-1 starting next February. Why should the FCC or anyone else want to prohibit it?

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!
Desert Hawk is offline  
post #837 of 7370 Old 05-05-2008, 04:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 13,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 35
FCC rules plalnly states that stations with analog channel numbers will use those analog channel numbers as their major channel numbers, not their actual RF channels. No waivers have been given that I am aware of. Sounds like someone hasn't read the rules.

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 #838 of 7370 Old 05-05-2008, 06:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
I have heard that WUPA-69 in Atlanta has a waiver. I have no confirmation, just something I heard, though I can't really imagine a CBS-owned station breaking the rules like that... Otherwise, I've not heard of any.

- 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 #839 of 7370 Old 05-05-2008, 07:46 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond View Post

Yes, there are -- but solid state is limited to lower power levels at UHF. Getting really high power levels out of solid-state devices is just more difficult (and expensive) than is the case for lower frequencies. As solid-state technology advances that will change, but it doesn't look like we're there yet.

This article makes more sense to me now, from TV Technology:

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0115/t.13212.html

Considering the wide variances, 10kW TPO would perhaps be enough to achieve around 100kW ERP.

Is it correct to assume that lower UHF channels are easier on the power bills? Line losses should be smaller for starters. Also, wouldn't 100kW ERP be more effective in say the 20's, vs. the 40's, so a lower ERP could replicate the same coverage?
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #840 of 7370 Old 05-05-2008, 08:48 AM
Member
 
KE0MI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
At UHF, the radio frequency energy does not bend as much over the optical horizon as does VHF. The coverage area of say a 1,000 kW ERP digital over a 100 kW ERP is only increased by about 10 percent in area. One statement I've heard is that 90% of the power only gains 10% of the potential audience. There are some additional losses due to frequency in line loss and even free space loss, but these are minor in the overall scheme of the operation. The higher frequencies can have additional gain observed in the antenna, due to shorter wave length, and the ability to add additional radiating elements in the same physical length of the antenna support structure. There are also discussions of running eliptical or circular radiation patterns to improve coverage, particularly in urban canyons.
KE0MI 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