AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › From TVT: FCC Gives DTS Official Nod
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

From TVT: FCC Gives DTS Official Nod

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/69030

Two points are as follows, see the above link for the full text of the article.

Quote:


THE WILMINGTON EFFECT
As part of the fallout from the September Wilmington, N.C. DTV trial, at least one station in that marketWECTheard from longstanding viewers that they could no longer receive its programming after the analog transmitter was shut down. Weiss was asked if he thought that DTS technology might be the best way to cope with this and other post-analog coverage problems.

What they [WECT] ended up with was a replication gap, Weiss said. The problem is that this particular stationeven if they had not moved their transmitter closer to the ocean to better center it in their real marketwould not have been able to replicate their analog coverage, as they were moving from low VHF to UHF.

Weiss said that it was too early to know if the commission would allow such stations that will no longer be able to cover their original service area to expand their reach with DTS.

I can't answer that at this point, he said. We probably won't know until the full Report and Order is released.

Wilson said that single frequency networks make more sense than going with traditional translator technology for filling such coverage gaps.

Certainly DTS is the most spectrally efficient solution when broadcasters complete the build out of their coverage area, he said. DTS is operationally a better solution than rebroadcasting on different channels.

Quote:


MORE WHITE SPACE ISSUES
The commission's decision came on the same day it voted to permit unlicensed white space devices to operate within spectrum previously set aside exclusively for television broadcasting.

A sizable group of white space device proponents view DTS as a direct threat to maximizing opportunities for white space operationmore TV transmitters in more places equates to less unused spectrum.

In comments representing the views of more than 20 DTS opponents filed with the commission more than two years ago, the New America Foundation and the Media Access Project declared that a favorable decision on DTS would provide a redefinition of broadcaster's service areas to include many of the white spaces not currently covered by a broadcaster's current single high-powered transmitter, pointing out that it could eventually lead to tens of thousands of new television transmitters.

Weiss was unsure how the commission would balance the two interests.

The broadcasters certainly are providing a service to some proportion of the population, as evidenced in the Wilmington case, he said. The other interests claim that they want to eliminate broadcasting from that spectrum within five years and that they want to increase their power from 40 mW to 10 W. They say they will keep coming back to the commission until they achieve this.

Weiss cited the success of a five-year DTS test in Pennsylvania that allowed WPSU-TV, a PBS member station owned and operated by The Pennsylvania State University, and licensed to operate in Clearfield, Pa., to reach an underserved area.

The station was blocked from providing service to its full market, Weiss said. Now that's possible.
post #2 of 17
Bring on DTS, to hell with the WSDs.
post #3 of 17
DTS Rules have been adopted and posted!

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-08-256A1.pdf

They essentially approved the WTVE-DT DTS in its current form:

Stations must propose a "theoretical" maximized transmitter from a single location, and then build a DTS to fill in that area, or a main transmitter with DTS repeaters to fill in holes in coverage. This means that a station can propose to maximize to match the contour of the largest station in the market. If they don't wish to do that, there's a "Table of Distances" which specifies how big the coverage contour should be.

All DTS transmitters will be licensed under a single license, as WTVE-DT is.

On top of this, stations can use on-channel translators for unprotected coverage expansion, and can correct problems like those of WECT, which lost large amounts of coverage.

- Trip
post #4 of 17
DTS is like a repeater, only on the same frequency, correct?

How do they avoid interfering with the main station in areas which can receive both? Are they actually synchronized close enough that this isn't a problem?
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 
DTS seems to be essentially the same as SFN (Single Frequency Networks), so yes, on channel repeaters/gap fillers. Considering the useful spectrum is only 7-51 (possible 0.3kW digital translators on 2-6 would be a joke) and when the existing translators get booted down the ladder, DTS will become more important (to the detriment of WSD's, of course).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-frequency_network

In other countries, SFN's are widely used (especially in Japan - using ISDB-T). However, ATSC was not designed for SFN's from the ground-up. Subsequent generations of ATSC tuners have made SFN's more realistic as they handle multi-path better, but older ATSC tuners probably won't work very well with SFN/DTS.
post #6 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

DTS seems to be essentially the same as SFN (Single Frequency Networks), so yes, on channel repeaters/gap fillers. Considering the useful spectrum is only 7-51 (possible 0.3kW digital translators on 2-6 would be a joke) and when the existing translators get booted down the ladder, DTS will become more important (to the detriment of WSD's, of course).

There seems to be confusion in your post about the status of the DTS slaves that are synchronized to a master transmitter. Each DTS receives a primary service contour equivalent a to a full service station with a single transmitter. The master and slave transmitters are not only allowed (not limited to 0.3kW on VHF) but are required to have enough power collectively to provide full coverage to the primary service contour and all of them have primary status. Cherry picking within the contour is prohibited. They aren't allowed to extend coverage beyond the contour except in a very limited manner when it is impractical to do otherwise. Coverage can be extended beyond the contour with a separately licensed translator (may be on-channel) with secondary status under the low power rules.
post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:


27. Specifically, we adopt the following Table of Distances.112 As explained below, the distances represent circles within which DTS station coverage contours must be contained. In the vast majority of cases, the appropriate circle will equal or exceed a station's currently authorized coverage contour, including the contour within which the station will provide service at the end of the transition. The rule will provide for those exceptional situations in which this is not the case.

(table modified for posting here)

Channel/Zone/Field Strength/Distance

2-6 1 28 dBu 108 km. (67 mi.)
2-6 2/3 28 dBu 128 km. (80 mi.)
7-13 1 36 dBu 101 km. (63 mi.)
7-13 2/3 36 dBu 123 km. (77 mi.)
14-51 1/2/3 41 dBu 103 km. (64 mi.)

What concerns me about this is that the UHF stations, which are in most need of DTS are being allowed the shortest allowed distances.

A waiver policy is being allowed for stations such as WECT, but they must apply for a waiver by 8/18/09 in such cases.

Quote:


Because the purpose of this waiver policy is to maintain service to existing viewers after the digital transition, we will limit the use of DTS under this waiver policy to stations that apply by August 18, 2009 to provide such service and commit to build the DTS facility as quickly as possible.115 We urge stations to determine now if they anticipate such a loss of service to current analog viewers and to apply as soon as possible to obtain an STA for DTS operation under the interim policy so that they can continue to provide uninterrupted service to the current analog viewers within their analog Grade B contour after they terminate their analog service.
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
It appears that it is ok to be within the service area as well.

Quote:


(2) Each DTS transmitter's coverage is contained within either the DTV station's Table of Distances area (pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section) or its authorized service area, except where such extension of coverage beyond the station's authorized service area is of a minimal amount and necessary to meet the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section;

In the case of Mt. Wilson (LA) stations, the service area is far greater than 64 miles for most UHF stations. However, part of the service areas extend into North County San Deigo, so I would not expect DTS facilities to be authorized that far South. However, areas such as Ventura/Oxnard, Burbank, Hemet, Coastal S. OC (e.g. Laguna Beach) could benefit, along with Palmdale/Lancaster and Victorville, though translators presumably serve the latter to some extent.

It will be interesting to see how many stations opt for this, however. As respects the "Cherry-Picking" prohibition, does this mean that stations won't be able to ignore areas with high rates of cable/sat service? (if they choose to implement DTS)

For Mystic, CT, I will be asking WFSB again for consideration as it is effectively impossible for them to service Mystic on UHF with their current transmitter location.

Of course, if constructed, DTS raises new issues about overload and co-location. Though the order seems to indicate that DTS facilities follow the same guidelines as primary transmitters, I would expect them to be much lower in both power and height. Are we looking at DTS transmitters on cell phone towers? If so, how many could some stations theoretically build?
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

What concerns me about this is that the UHF stations, which are in most need of DTS are being allowed the shortest allowed distances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

It will be interesting to see how many stations opt for this, however. As respects the "Cherry-Picking" prohibition, does this mean that stations won't be able to ignore areas with high rates of cable/sat service? (if they choose to implement DTS)

For Mystic, CT, I will be asking WFSB again for consideration as it is effectively impossible for them to service Mystic on UHF with their current transmitter location.

There is also a maximum provision where the contour can be equal to the station with the largest contour in their market although I think the FCC considers the maximum radius to never exceed 80 miles. Could be a very important provision if stations are allowed to jointly share a new channel for M/H and let's hope they are.

AFAIK no cherry picking means a DTS station can't ignore any area within their service contour but the reference is mainly to underserved communities. Is Mystic underserved and will WFSB consider a DTS?
post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

It appears that it is ok to be within the service area as well. In the case of Mt. Wilson (LA) stations, the service area is far greater than 64 miles for most UHF stations. However, part of the service areas extend into North County San Deigo, so I would not expect DTS facilities to be authorized that far South. However, areas such as Ventura/Oxnard, Burbank, Hemet, Coastal S. OC (e.g. Laguna Beach) could benefit, along with Palmdale/Lancaster and Victorville, though translators presumably serve the latter to some extent.(snip)

I see DTS being very useful here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Many areas that are within 30 to 40 miles of Sutro Tower and Mt. San Bruno cannot receive OTA signals due to mountains or 1000 foot hills blocking the signal. Cities like Walnut Creek, Concord, Dublin and Pleasanton on the east side of the East Bay hills, areas in Marin County and north that are blocked by Mt. Tamalpais, and lots of coastal areas, from Daly City south to Santa Cruz could all benefit from DTS service.

One thing I didn't find in the new R&O is what happens in overlapping coverage areas, like San Francisco and Sacramento. San Francisco stations' coverage goes well into the Sacramento area, and vis-versa. I wonder if the FCC would approve DTS transmitters for areas within a station's coverage area that's also within the coverage area of the other market?

Larry
SF
post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kenney View Post

One thing I didn't find in the new R&O is what happens in overlapping coverage areas, like San Francisco and Sacramento. San Francisco stations' coverage goes well into the Sacramento area, and vis-versa. I wonder if the FCC would approve DTS transmitters for areas within a station's coverage area that's also within the coverage area of the other market?

Larry
SF

As long as it doesn't interfere with other stations apparently the answer is yes as a big deal was made about localism, serving the community of license, and the station not losing its focus by concentrating on the potentially large DMA rather than its local service area within the contour. In fact that is the reason given for the FCC choosing the equivalent service contour rather than extended coverage covering an entire DMA.
post #12 of 17
This looks like a major headache.

What if WPHL-17, which currently comes in nice-and-clear, decides to put-in a secondary DTS transmitter and the resulting multipath makes WPHL impossible to receive with my tuner?
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

This looks like a major headache.

What if WPHL-17, which currently comes in nice-and-clear, decides to put-in a secondary DTS transmitter and the resulting multipath makes WPHL impossible to receive with my tuner?

Then you won't be able to get MyNetworkTV. No great loss.

Seriously, I can't see a station on a third-tier network building another transmitter. What would be the point.

And in any case, if you get WPHL-17 nice and clear, there'd be no need for them to put in a DTS transmitter nearby.
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post

And in any case, if you get WPHL-17 nice and clear, there'd be no need for them to put in a DTS transmitter nearby.

Exactly why would they spend the money to interfere where there is already good reception?
post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

Exactly why would they spend the money to interfere where there is already good reception?

If they aren't careful and put the DTS up too high or make it too strong, it could interfere away from the intended area. What I'm trying to figure out is how these DTS transmitters will be synchronized, since every viewer is in a different location and will get the signals at different times.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

If they aren't careful and put the DTS up too high or make it too strong, it could interfere away from the intended area. What I'm trying to figure out is how these DTS transmitters will be synchronized, since every viewer is in a different location and will get the signals at different times.

There are several technologies out there which claim to do it. I remember reading an article about WPSU-DT's network which had some system, and another article about the WTVE-DT network which used another system I believe.

I don't care enough to find out how they work, but I know the companies claim that they do.

- Trip
post #17 of 17
I'd be curious to know if any WPSU-DT viewers lost their signal after the secondary transmitters were installed (due to multipath interference).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post

Then you won't be able to get MyNetworkTV. No great loss.

Yeah but I wouldn't be able to watch the Phillies or Eagles games, which IS a great loss. WPHL also shows a lot of good movies and syndicated programming during weekends.

And finally, it was just an example. I could have said "WHP" instead, which is a weak signal that could be lost if secondary transmitters created interference.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Technical
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Technical › From TVT: FCC Gives DTS Official Nod