The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread - Page 8 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 7370 Old 08-10-2007, 05:32 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

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

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

For the moment, I may dive into the FCC database to determine the current (Licensed) count, by channel, including these.
Falcon_77 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 7370 Old 08-11-2007, 05:18 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 Falcon_77 View Post

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

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

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

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 #213 of 7370 Old 08-13-2007, 12:18 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are translator stations elected as well or are they assigned by the FCC? I will be curious to review this again when they are finalized as well.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #214 of 7370 Old 08-20-2007, 05:37 AM
Newbie
 
Jaybird100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pembroke Pines, FL
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As a newbie to this thread, I think the FCC blew the best opportunity they had to move all television broadcasting in the US to UHF. It would have made sense, seeing as how many countries in Europe have already done so, and with great success.
Jaybird100 is offline  
post #215 of 7370 Old 08-20-2007, 08:59 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 Jaybird100 View Post

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

They did initially try but there are too many stations, full power and LP's to fit in UHF only.

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 #216 of 7370 Old 08-20-2007, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
milehighmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I disagree. The FCC kept VHF 2-13, 12 channels total, and gave up UHF 52-69, 18 channels. The FCC could have easily given up VHF and UHF 64-69 and kept UHF 52-63 for the same number of channels available. I think the issue was economic - folks interested in the high UHF frequencies (auction $) - versus number of channels available. Cell phone providers don't want their 0.1 watt traveling 10 miles on VHF channel 2.
milehighmike is offline  
post #217 of 7370 Old 08-20-2007, 02:25 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 milehighmike View Post

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


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

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 #218 of 7370 Old 08-20-2007, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
milehighmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So why did the effort to keep everything on UHF fail? There has to be a reason other than there weren't enough channels available, which is what you insinuated in post 215.
milehighmike is offline  
post #219 of 7370 Old 08-20-2007, 07:54 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 milehighmike View Post

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

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

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 #220 of 7370 Old 08-21-2007, 01:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
milehighmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm sorry to be argumentative, but your posts make no common sense. The FCC gave away 18 channels on UHF to keep 12 channels on VHF. That's why WPVI is saddled with channel 6 instead of a channel in the 52-69 range. The net loss of 6 channels is why there is no spectrum available. That's the "simple logistics", as you put it.

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

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

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

As an aside, why did the FCC think that the number of channels had to be reduced by eliminating channels 52-69? The number of TV stations hasn't been reduced (except for the few that can't afford to go digital and will go dark on 2-17-09). Reducing the spectrum without a corresponding reduction in TV stations creates chaos. Again, that's why WPVI is on digital channel 6. This precipitates the coverage problems via co-channel interference and the 1 mW limit on ERP.
milehighmike is offline  
post #221 of 7370 Old 08-21-2007, 05:01 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 milehighmike View Post

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

You are not listening. First some history.

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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 #222 of 7370 Old 08-21-2007, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
milehighmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
foxeng,

Thanks for the history lesson. I do have one last question. How was it determined that channels 52-69 would be eliminated? The question relates to pure numbers. In other words, why weren't channels 59-69 eliminated instead? Was this arbratrary, determined by the number of stations in existence at the time, etc.?
milehighmike is offline  
post #223 of 7370 Old 08-21-2007, 10:49 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 milehighmike View Post

foxeng,

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

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

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

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 #224 of 7370 Old 08-21-2007, 04:51 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
Those interested in the history "What channels were decided to be in the core DTV channels(ch 2-51) and why" will probably also want to read :

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

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri.../fcc97115.html

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

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri.../fcc98024.html

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCC MO&O from Feb 98 - note references to footnotes removed View Post


B. Selection of the DTV Core Spectrum

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

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

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

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

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

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


Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
post #225 of 7370 Old 08-21-2007, 05:19 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 foxeng View Post

.... there are some station don't have a choice but to be on VHF low, WPVI in Phili comes to mind being stuck on channel 6 and can't get off of it post transition after trying very hard to get off channel 6. No spectrum available. It boils down to simple logistics.

Looking at FCC's assertion in 6th report and order and associated documents where they said ch 7-51 would be "enough" room, in hindsight it appears they were wrong, but perhaps only by a small margin ...

Looking over the 37 post-transistion lo-VHF assignments though as well as various "info" concerning WPVI's situation .. And "generally" speaking without knowing all the details regarding the other 36 of them ...Regarding full service stations at least it does appear that WPVI may be the only one that has ended up getting "stuck" on channel 6 due to there not being a spot for them elsewhere, even though, for instance what WBBM has ended up with in order for them to move off lo-VHF might not be the most ideal situation ... If it is the only one, it seems(again in hindsight as related to the things that Weren't known back then) to me FCC was cutting it awfully close when they said in those documents there was "enough" room on 7-51, weren't they?

Jeff
Nitewatchman is offline  
post #226 of 7370 Old 08-21-2007, 05:38 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
WABC was out in the cold too and ABC forced that one hard (and lost the battle with WPVI). I am not sure what power WABC got on channel 7, but I would guess it isn't anywhere near what they have now on channel 7. I hear channel 9 was pretty much nothing in power as well even though you have two full power stations on those channels now.

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 #227 of 7370 Old 08-21-2007, 11:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
milehighmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
According to the final channel assignment document issued by the FCC, Appendix B, on 8-6-07, WABC got 3.2 kW on channel 7. Channel 11, which I believe is WPIX, also got 3.2 kW. Channel 9, WWOR, moved to channel 38 for digital.
milehighmike is offline  
post #228 of 7370 Old 08-22-2007, 04:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SnellKrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Upper East Side - Manhattan
Posts: 2,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by milehighmike View Post

According to the final channel assignment document issued by the FCC, Appendix B, on 8-6-07, WABC got 3.2 kW on channel 7. Channel 11, which I believe is WPIX, also got 3.2 kW. Channel 9, WWOR, moved to channel 38 for digital.

Yes, WPIX-DT will move from channel 33 to its analogue assignment,
channel 11.

WCBS-DT which currently broadcasts on channel 56, will have to move
and it will be taking over channel 33, vacated by WPIX-DT.


WWOR-DT has always been on channel 38 - there is no reassignment with this channel.
SnellKrell is offline  
post #229 of 7370 Old 08-22-2007, 04:42 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 milehighmike View Post

According to the final channel assignment document issued by the FCC, Appendix B, on 8-6-07, WABC got 3.2 kW on channel 7. Channel 11, which I believe is WPIX, also got 3.2 kW.

3.2 kW on VHF high is fairly low compared to other VHF high allocations which are in the 15 to 35 kw average range nationwide. The reason for the lower power is due to the concentration of stations in the Northeast all having to fit within the post transition confines, the reason WABC had such a hard time retaining channel 7. And if I remember correctly, someone else has already elected WABC's current channel 45 as their digital channel after WABC started the election process to move back to channel 7 forcing WABC into a bad situation. WABC had to reduce power and agree to accept interference from other digital channel 7's and 8's in operation or who had elected prior to WABC. In a nutshell, Disney forced that one through.

Quote:
Channel 9, WWOR, moved to channel 38 for digital.

Due to intellectual property issues, I can't comment on WWOR.

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 #230 of 7370 Old 08-22-2007, 07:22 AM
Member
 
mdodge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: RI
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

And if I remember correctly, someone else has already elected WABC's current channel 45 as their digital channel after WABC started the election process to move back to channel 7 forcing WABC into a bad situation.

Me thinks you should go back and research the facts on this. It's pretty complicated but is well documented.

CPTV - Home of UConn Women's Basketball
mdodge is offline  
post #231 of 7370 Old 08-22-2007, 09:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
posg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitewatchman View Post

Looking at FCC's assertion in 6th report and order and associated documents where they said ch 7-51 would be "enough" room, in hindsight it appears they were wrong, but perhaps only by a small margin ...

Looking over the 37 post-transistion lo-VHF assignments though as well as various "info" concerning WPVI's situation .. And "generally" speaking without knowing all the details regarding the other 36 of them ...Regarding full service stations at least it does appear that WPVI may be the only one that has ended up getting "stuck" on channel 6 due to there not being a spot for them elsewhere, even though, for instance what WBBM has ended up with in order for them to move off lo-VHF might not be the most ideal situation ... If it is the only one, it seems(again in hindsight as related to the things that Weren't known back then) to me FCC was cutting it awfully close when they said in those documents there was "enough" room on 7-51, weren't they?

Can't WPVI, or any station in a handicapped allocation, do a frequency swap with cash considerations, or buy out a more desirable channel and move their operations. Seems silly for ABC in a top 10 market to be stuck in the weeds on V-low, while the local ION affiliate enjoys a desirable location.
posg is offline  
post #232 of 7370 Old 08-22-2007, 01:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SnellKrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Upper East Side - Manhattan
Posts: 2,146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
You bet, buying your way has been going on for years, even before this current situation, with an inept FCC approving ludicrous deals that are not in the publics' interest, convenience and necessity.

Big money, by way of lobbiests, continue to undermine us, the public.


Cash "considerations" have been rampant!
SnellKrell is offline  
post #233 of 7370 Old 08-22-2007, 01:34 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 have to wonder what will happen if VHF-LO holds at 2% after the translators and low power stations are assigned. It seems like a waste of space in that case, but it also seems that the "land" is just more valuable (for other services) on 52-56.

It seems to me that the real core remains at 7-51 and that 2-6 equates to an overflow area.

Once 52-69 are gone, I suppose there's no hope of getting any of them back. Perhaps it's like the local Marine base that's being turned into a park...

Well, if we don't have enough channels perhaps we can look at new compression schemes or multiplexing like they do in the UK. Multiplexing in the US is really hard for me to envision, however. Ownership/tower issues aside, it seems to work in the UK due to the (current) lack of OTA HD channels.

Maybe it's all water under the bridge at this point and we are just waiting for the waterfall.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #234 of 7370 Old 08-22-2007, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas/Pahrump, NV
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

Can't WPVI, or any station in a handicapped allocation, do a frequency swap with cash considerations, or buy out a more desirable channel and move their operations. Seems silly for ABC in a top 10 market to be stuck in the weeds on V-low, while the local ION affiliate enjoys a desirable location.

You're assuming that every station actually cares about OTA coverage. For instance, I can't think of any reason KVBC in Las Vegas elected to stay on channel 2 other than saving money on their transmitter power bill.
GeorgeLV is offline  
post #235 of 7370 Old 08-22-2007, 08:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
If WPVI really WANTED a UHF allocation they could have gotten it.

I'm sure that WTVE in Reading would gladly accept being moved to channel 50 at WPVI's expense in order to locate WPVI-DT on channel 25 in Philadelphia. It's such an easy move to make, too.

As far as KVBC is concerned, I think they only care about the immediate Las Vegas metro area, and with as much power as they're pumping out on channel 2, how bad is it? Besides, I doubt they'd want to build out yet another transmitter. Though I imagine that they could get any upper-VHF that's not presently taken if they wanted it, what with Vegas being as isolated as it is.

- 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 #236 of 7370 Old 08-23-2007, 06:55 AM
Senior Member
 
HIPAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Pa
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There is another complication concerning channel availability. In some Metro areas the spectrum of lower UHF Channels are being used for two way communications. Camden County, across the river from Philadelphia, uses several frequencies in the 512 MHz band (Channel 20). That eliminates at least one channel that might have been available to WPVI.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urbanized area Bands (MHz) .......... TV channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston, MA..................... 470-476, 482-488.. 14, 16
Chicago, IL-Northwestern....... 470-476, 476-482.. 14, 15
Indiana.
Cleveland, OH.................. 470-476, 476-482.. 14, 15
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX.......... 482-488........... 16
Detroit, MI.................... 476-482, 482-488.. 15, 16
Houston, TX.................... 488-494........... 17
Los Angeles, CA................ 470-476, 482-488, 506-512.. 14, 16, 20

Miami, FL...................... 470-476........... 14
New York, NY-Northeastern New.. 470-476, 476-482, 482-488.. 14, 15, 16
Jersey.
Philadelphia, PA-New Jersey.... 500-506, 506-512.. 19, 20
Pittsburgh, PA................. 470-476, 494-500.. 14, 18
San Francisco-Oakland, CA...... 482-488, 488-494.. 16, 17
Washington, DC-Maryland........ 488-494, 494-500.. 17, 18
Virginia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



--- CHAS

If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
HIPAR is offline  
post #237 of 7370 Old 08-23-2007, 08:27 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
Did the FCC ever consider vertical polarization? Other countries, such as the UK, use both vertical and horizontal polarization to help separate channels.

I suppose the problem here is that with both VHF and UHF and with both vertical and horizontal polarization, that we would have to deal with even more complex antenna arrays.

In the UK, for most areas, they only need to worry about locking onto transmissions from a single tower. This greatly simplifies the process (generally, they only need one horizontally or one vertically polarized antenna).

Perhaps polarization could be done by MSA here, but I'm assuming it's far too late for that now.
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #238 of 7370 Old 08-23-2007, 09:13 AM
Senior Member
 
HIPAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Pa
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My observation is that polarization is not preserved in the terrestrial environment. I suspect multiple specular reflections and scattering from vegetation, especially for UHF propagation, corrupts the original polarization.

Has anyone of you tried receiving 8VSB with a circular polarized antenna?

--- CHAS

If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
HIPAR is offline  
post #239 of 7370 Old 08-23-2007, 12:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GeorgeLV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas/Pahrump, NV
Posts: 3,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

As far as KVBC is concerned, I think they only care about the immediate Las Vegas metro area, and with as much power as they're pumping out on channel 2, how bad is it? Besides, I doubt they'd want to build out yet another transmitter. Though I imagine that they could get any upper-VHF that's not presently taken if they wanted it, what with Vegas being as isolated as it is.

- Trip

Reliable OTA reception of KVBC-DT is about as challenging as WBBM-DT in Chicago, that is, next to impossible. It's not a matter of signal strength so much as interference, anybody viewing from an OTA or DirecTV will experience intermittent breakups. (Cox Cable has a dedicated fiber feed.)

As for an upper-VHF, unless the FCC allows 3 adjacent digital channels there's nowhere to put it given the current post-transition allotments.

7 - KLAS-DT
9 - KVVU-DT
11 - KLVX-DT
13 - KTNV-DT

As for what could have been, I imagine you could have squeezed KVBC on channel 13 if KLVX moved back to channel 10 and KTNV stayed at channel 12. That way you only have single adjacent digital channels.

7 - KLAS
9 - KVVU
10 - KLVX
12 - KTNV
13 - KVBC
GeorgeLV is offline  
post #240 of 7370 Old 08-23-2007, 12:23 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 HIPAR View Post

My observation is that polarization is not preserved in the terrestrial environment. I suspect multiple specular reflections and scattering from vegetation, especially for UHF propagation, corrupts the original polarization.

Has anyone of you tried receiving 8VSB with a circular polarized antenna?

--- CHAS

I have tried receiving local channels with a vertically polarized Silver Sensor. I was able to still get most channels, though the strengths were greatly reduced. One channel ended up with major signal strength oscillations as well (from 0-75%). Perhaps this test would be meaningful with a more directional antenna.
Falcon_77 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