The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread

I get noticable FM "herringbone" noise on channel 6 (analog) in Philadelphia now. I don't know what effect that will have on a digital channel, but if it's a problem I hope it moves. The FM and the channel are too close both spatially and in the spectrum for filtering to work well.

WPVI ABC 6 in Philadelphia has to be one of the VHF 6 digital stations that FCC would want to move. It is right smack in the middle of the crowded mid-Atlantic region. From FCC documents I have scanned, the technical staff have stated that they prefer to move all full power stations off of VHF 6 and one would think they would most want to do this for the eastern stations. So it will be interesting to see what happens to WEDY 65/6 PBS New Haven, WRGB-6/39 CBS Albany, and WPVI-6/64 stations. But does ABC, the owner of WPVI, want to use channel 6 for digital transmission or would they rather go to a different UHF channel if they can find one?

What is the plan for the translators and low power / Class A stations? I was looking at the two lists put out on Tuesday (it was flagged in the previous 3rd round selection thread) - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-271622A1.pdf and http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-271621A1.pdf. If I read it correctly, there are some LPs and translators seeking to broadcast on VHF 6 and other low VHF channels. Is the FCC staff not as concerned about VHF 6 for the low power transmitters?

How effective are FM traps in a situation like that?

the fm filter in preamps usually are not adequate to filter the most agrevating fm interference issues.

Depending on the circumstances, Fm band barrel style filters are inexpensive, have a notch about 50db, and can be purchased to filter the entire fm band or a specific station/frequency. The fm band filter will affect reception on ch6 some.

In some cases, if the station is very strong and/or the tower is close by, you may need to add a filter to each of the tuners. the strong fm signal can ingress through the coax after the antenna placed filter. filtering just at the antenna may not be sufficient.

the filters are available here for example

http://www.microwavefilter.com

http://www.cefilter.com

I use a notch filter tuned to 100.9 mhz for an fm tower less than a mile away in direct line of sight to the tv towers. I do not use an fm band filter since I use my vhf antenna to receive fm and vhf.

I no longer hear music between ch 6 and ch 7.

From what I'm hearing, WEDY may not even exist by 2012. WEDH-DT is at a different transmitter site than WEDH-TV, and this alternate tower site will make WEDY redundant.

As far as I know, WRGB was hoping to get an upper-VHF and ended up being unable to do so. They very well could be one of those stations that filed to move. I know that it's the only station owned by Freedom Communications that still has a low-VHF station as its "final" election, WWMT-DT 2 in Kalamazoo MI having elected channel 8.


I'd imagine they'd like a UHF, but there's just nothing available that provides full-market coverage.

7/11/13: New York
8: WNJB New Brunswick-New York
9: WBPH
10: WHTM Harrisburg
12: WHYY
14/15: Reserved in New York for land-mobile
16: May interfere with 14/15 above
17: WPHL
18: WMBC Newton-New York
19/20: Reserved in Philadelphia for land-mobile
21: WHP Harrisburg/WBOC Salisbury/WLIW Garden City-New York
22: WNJS
23: WLYH Harrisburg
24: WNYE New York
25: WTVE
26: KYW
27: WGTW
28: WCPB Salisbury/WNBC New York
29: WFME West Milford-New York/WMPB Baltimore (Is WUVP here too? What a mess...)
30: WGCB Red Lion-Harrisburg
31: WPPX/WPXN New York (this one's a wreck in and of itself; why oh why didn't WPXN stay on 30?)
32: WPSG
33: WCBS New York
34: WCAU
35: WYBE
36: WMGM Cape May-Atlantic City/WNJU New York/WITF Harrisburg
38: WWOR Secaucus-New York/WMAR Baltimore
39: WLVT
40: WXTV Paterson-New York/WNUV Baltimore
41: WVIA Scranton/WUTB Baltimore
42: WTXF
43: WNJT
44: WMCN
45: WOLF Hazleton-Scranton/Interference with WMCN Atlantic City/WFMZ Allentown
46: WFMZ
47: WPMT York-Harrisburg/WMDT Salisbury
48: Interference with WWSI Atlantic City
49: WWSI
50: Interference with WWSI Atlantic City
51: WNJN Montclair-New York

The only thing that came into my mind would be to try and move something like WGCB and go on channel 30, but would they want to pay for two stations like that?

I also thought about them going on channel 25 and moving WTVE back to channel 51. I think that would work.

Theoretically, I suppose they could try something more complicated... But it starts getting expensive very quickly.


I wouldn't be as concerned about those. Most of them don't host major network stations, and are free to move again once the rest of the band is opened up (namely, when the final table of allocations takes effect).

EDIT: Also, add to your list of stations able to move, WCES-20/2 Wrens/Augusta and WABW-14/5 Pelham/Tallahassee, both of which applied to go to channel 6 in Round Three...

- Trip

Hmm. That's interesting. What's happening in 2012 to cause it to go away? WEDY-DT, presently, is dark awaiting its license from the FCC . Although you are correct in stating that WEDY will be redundant, it is built and will be used.

BTW: WEDH-24 is moving to Farmington, CT (along side the future WEDH-DT/45). It should be on the air in a few weeks.

Marc

I'm just saying that I don't think that WEDY-DT will go away right at the analog shutoff in 2009, but that it will probably be gone by 2012. Not that anything specific is happening.

- Trip

From what I understand, a great majority of the stations with VHF-Low assignments chose not to participate. Clearly, the "strongly encourages" is falling on deaf ears.

Please point me to the fcc document that points this matter out that the fcc wants them off channels 2-6. I have been unable to locate such a document.

Till then it sounds more like misinformed hearsay and/or idle speculation than the FCCs actual position on the matter.

Show me the FCC documented evidence of what their current position is on ch 2-6 vhf.

I did a search for "strongly discouraged" and couldn't find either word in the document, but I did find similar wording in places:

1) Paragraph 43 (page 18), dealing with KTFK Stockton: "In addition, our proposal will facilitate adoption of the final DTV Table and avoid the allotment of a low-VHF channel, which the Commission has long disfavored." A footnote to this sentence reads: "The Commission has recognized in this proceeding that low-VHF channels are subject to technical penalties, including higher ambient noise levels and, in the case of channel 6, concerns of possible interference to and from FM radio service. See Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14627, ¶ 82; see also DTV Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 7436, ¶ 41."

2) Paragraph 46 (page 19), dealing with KVIE Sacramento: "As noted above, the Commission has long disfavored the use of channel 6 as a DTV allotment. When it adopted the initial DTV Table, the Commission sought to minimize the potential for interference between DTV and FM radio service by avoiding the use of channel 6 for DTV whenever possible, which resulted in only one channel 6 allotment in the initial DTV Table."

The strange thing is, while they said there was "only one channel 6 allotment in the initial DTV table," there are now eight by Trip's count.

That's absolutely correct. In the original digital table of allocations, only WCTX-DT (it was then WBNE-DT) in New Haven, CT was on channel 6. And that one got traded with WEDY-DT 39 due to issues with channel 6 (for WCTX) and cost issues (for WEDY).

Also note that of those 8, only one is currently broadcasting on channel 6. One of them (KTVM Butte) originally received channel 2 as their digital and moved it to channel 33.

There are three stations CURRENTLY on channel 6, and other than WEDY, both have channel 5 as their analogs. WDTV-5 Weston/Clarksburg, WV and KYES-5 Anchorage, AK. Both wish to return to channel 5, and both have, shall we say, "cheap" owners.

- Trip

There's less than 2 years left and these things are still not worked out? Construction of a DTV station is not a trivial thing. How are upcoming problems going to be addressed when stations, some like WPVI in major DMAs, miss the 2009 deadline because of government inability to resolve the channel allocation issues? I see another postponement coming.

--- CHAS

As far as I know everybody has an allocation. Not necessarily a "good" allocation in our eyes, but an allocation nonetheless. I doubt they'll be delaying the whole thing nationwide just because channel 6 in Philly or channel 4 in Rock Island finds itself in a world of hurt they didn't foresee when it picked its channel. I would also think that when all the TV bands are digital and things get stabilized, there will be space where these stations can move if they decide the power savings they got from being in low-V isn't worth the reception troubles.

I think the FCC should have given Trip in VA a sole source consultation contract to straighten the mess out two years ago.

--- CHAS

we discuss alot about the things the stations need to buy to get to the transition...what do they do with all the stuff they turn off. that stuff aint cheap either.

or is it like what we will need to do but on a larger scale.

As conceited as it sounds, I'm inclined to agree! =P

As a high school student with far too much free time, I'd actually developed an allocation plan. Actually, I developed a plan to resolve the interference problems of the northeast. I'd kept it to myself, but since it will never be adopted...

http://data.quelorant.com/NortheasternPlan.png

It's not perfect, but it's better than the current disaster.

- Trip

Here's another article from the person who is realistic about the DTV transition

http://www.tvtech.com/pages/s.0082/t.4975.html

--- CHAS

I really don't think transmitter disposal post transition is going to be as big a deal as that article makes out. Everyone I have talked to has a plan. Most are saying if the transmitter is not much over 10 years old they will either convert it to digital or move it to a sister station. If the transmitter is over 10 years old, it is going in the land fill because it can't be converted and more than likely isn't cost effective operationally anymore anyway. Certainly in TV you don't have that many old transmitters with PCBs in them like you do in radio. I can only think of one TV transmitter within 250 miles of me that has a transmitter old enough to have PCBs in them. It has been to TV's advantage to routinely replace transmitters for better operational costs because of the power levels many run. In radio, they don't let anything go so it would be a larger issue. If you read the article carefully, the people who are talking about PCBs are not TV stations, but radio stations.

Harris also makes a false assumption that the 300 some VHF post transition stations have made NO plans. That is FALSE. My station is one of those 306 stations. We have a plan, have had a plan and all we have to do is go on our backup analog transmitter on our back site close to Feb 17, 2009 and convert our main VHF transmitter to digital and then on Feb 17, 2009 turn it back on and then convert the backup at our leisure. Everything else is already done. Our UHF digital goes to a sister station that is remaining on UHF as either a backup or as parts to increase power of their existing UHF digital transmitter.

The one thing that is true from that article is that post transition, there will be no need for transmitters in the US market and you will be seeing many of the transmitter manufactures either go out of business or have to sell overseas harder to stay in business for the next 5 to 10 years when the first generation DTV transmitters from the late 90's come up for replacement.

How realistic is it for stations to make the DTV transition before the Feb 2009 deadline? A few have already petitioned the FCC and have received permission.

I realize there are areas where that might not be possible because of interference problems. But how about from a business viewpoint? Will station management commit to an early transition knowing the general public might not be ready when the date arrives?

--- CHAS

I can' t speak for every station, but contrary from what many not in the business think, most stations just want this over and the sooner the better. It has cost them lots of money to build out second transmitter/antenna sites and it is costing money to operate two transmitters, one that is costing 3 to 5 times the operating cost of the other with hardly any return for the capital investment or operating costs.

No one in the industry is talking about a delay in the transition, only certain people in DC who are worried about re-election have even broached that subject and the response has been either to ignore them or respond negatively. Stations are pretty much ready. The big unknown is can the FCC finish their part in time.

Remember, some stations have asked for early sign offs only to be denied by the FCC. And others have been granted. Most thik the FCC doesn't want stations to sign off analog until they feel the market place is ready for them to and they feel that 2009 is the realistic time frame. But the truth is, as long as the majority of viewers are analog, and the FCC allows analog to stay on the air, most stations will run both transmitters because it is to their long term survival to do so.

Will you have stragglers try something on Feb 17, 2009? Sure. Inevitable. But it will be too late for those few. For the majority, we are tired of expending time, energy and money to this issue. Just keep the playing field level and we would sign analog off today.

And you already have seen how many people Harris has laid off already.

As i posted in another thread, i know of a situation in a Top 5 market where CBS has to leave the UHF frequency and move back to their new home - and the FOX station has to move to the UHF where the CBS is now.

And if you think CBS is going to sign off 1 minute before midnight of the deadline to make it easier for all concerned, you are fooling yourself.

The percentage of cable and satellite viewers is believed to be about 85%. I would suspect almost all of these also subscribe to locals.

So how many of the remaining 15% over the air viewers are actually viewing the digital channels? Everyone I know is still watching NTSC.

--- CHAS