or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread - Page 102

post #3031 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnS-MI View Post

Yeah, tell the judge the Code of Federal Regulations is just some opinion. Good luck with that:
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/73-316-antenna-systems-19854368

Thank you for FINALLY providing a link to a rule.

(Although that rule would NOT prohibit a vertical only or vertical dominant antenna. It would only prevent a vertical signal greater than the maximum ERP permitted. And while it is "standard" to employ horizontal polarization and vertical is not mentioned, it is not specifically banned.)
post #3032 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

Thank you for FINALLY providing a link to a rule.

(Although that rule would NOT prohibit a vertical only or vertical dominant antenna. It would only prevent a vertical signal greater than the maximum ERP permitted. And while it is "standard" to employ horizontal polarization and vertical is not mentioned, it is not specifically banned.)

Wrong. Your horizontal erp is the basis of allocation. The vertical may not exceed it (I don't know where the special rules are for non commercials below 92 MHz, but I think the people who have mentioned them are correct).
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/73-310-techn...tions-19854333
Quote:


47 CFR 73.310 - FM technical definitions.
Code of Federal Regulations - Title 47: Telecommunication (December 2005)

Effective radiated power. The term effective radiated power means the product of the antenna power (transmitter output power less transmission line loss) times: (1) The antenna power gain, or (2) the antenna field gain squared. Where circular or elliptical polarization is employed, the term effective radiated power is applied separately to the horizontal and vertical components of radiation. For allocation purposes, the effective radiated power authorized is the horizontally polarized component of radiation only.

Based on this definition, (there must be special rules elsewhere) if your horizontal is zero, your allocation is zero, and the vertical may not exceed it.

If you have chapter and verse saying vertically dominant is OK, please provide it.
post #3033 of 7384
Alright folks, let's keep it civil. I like all of you guys and don't like all the fighting.

The rule JohnS-MI noted is pretty clear about commercial FM stations (those on 92-108). For anyone who doesn't know, there's a table of allocations for commercial FM stations (those above 92 MHz) only, and below 92 MHz is non-commercial and licensed based on interference levels and whatnot.

- Trip
post #3034 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

Alright folks, let's keep it civil. I like all of you guys and don't like all the fighting.

It makes me sorry that I asked the question, especially since this is the channel change thread and not an FM thread after all.
post #3035 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

It makes me sorry that I asked the question, especially since this is the channel change thread and not an FM thread after all.

With apologies ... at least we FINALLY got an accurate link to what JohnS-MI was claiming, even though he was dead wrong on the non-comms. Sorry it took so many posts.

Back to topic ... which should be the channel change requests (and not the transition?). Seems we have an awful lot of drift in this thread.
post #3036 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

I see no rule posted, just an opinion that you now agree with. It would be nice to see the rule.

I posted the rule from the FCC web site...was not an opinion:
The link to the FCC R&Rs is:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html

35+ years in broadcast, I dont misquote the FCC......
post #3037 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnS-MI View Post

Wrong. Your horizontal erp is the basis of allocation. The vertical may not exceed it (I don't know where the special rules are for non commercials below 92 MHz, but I think the people who have mentioned them are correct).
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/73-310-techn...tions-19854333


Based on this definition, (there must be special rules elsewhere) if your horizontal is zero, your allocation is zero, and the vertical may not exceed it.

If you have chapter and verse saying vertically dominant is OK, please provide it.


May I suggest you look at Part 73 and search the following subpart:

Subpart C -- Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations

Specifically: Sec. 73.525 TV Channel 6 protection.

There, you will find the requirements for the vertical use near Channel 6 stations.
post #3038 of 7384
Dr. Touchtone, please, civil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

With apologies ... at least we FINALLY got an accurate link to what JohnS-MI was claiming, even though he was dead wrong on the non-comms. Sorry it took so many posts.

Back to topic ... which should be the channel change requests (and not the transition?). Seems we have an awful lot of drift in this thread.

Some would disagree, but I find this thread to be good for discussing all kinds of FCC-related matters when there's a shortage of allocations to discuss, as has happened now that the FCC is focusing fully on the transition and less so on making sure the stations have enough power once they transition.

- Trip
post #3039 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

Alright folks, let's keep it civil. I like all of you guys and don't like all the fighting.

The rule JohnS-MI noted is pretty clear about commercial FM stations (those on 92-108). For anyone who doesn't know, there's a table of allocations for commercial FM stations (those above 92 MHz) only, and below 92 MHz is non-commercial and licensed based on interference levels and whatnot.

- Trip

AND stations above 92 MHz are spaced on the allocations....if a stations is allocated a Class C, it is PROTECTED for the Class C limits EVEN if it is not at Class C max height or ERP (IE the station may be at 1400ft but protected as if it were at 2000ft) .....YET, in the noncomm band, stations are spaced on ACTUAL contour operational levels....thus you find stations spaced closer for the same class in the non comm band than in the commercial band....That's the way the rules are...(and it causes consulting engineers all sorts of headaches!
post #3040 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

Dr. Touchtone, please, civil.


- Trip

Ok, edited it down and even gave the link to the rules..cant miss!
post #3041 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

If you're asking whether I know how much vertical power is going into it, it's not in the FCC database as far as I can tell. I looked for it because I wanted to include it, but I couldn't find a field in my database that had that information.

Yes, there's only one field in the tv_eng_data table for ERP for TV stations. (effective_erp) The fm_eng_data table has two fields, one for horizontal and one for vertical. (I forget the field names)

As you found, for TV there is a field (ant_mode if I remember properly) which indicates whether it's horizontal, elliptical, or circular. But it only lists a number for the horizontal component.

My (strong) suspicion is that (for TV) any amount of vertical-plane power is permitted as long as it's equal to or less than the horizontal-plane power.

In any case, circular and elliptical TV stations are fairly rare. (as opposed to FM stations, the vast majority of which are circular)
post #3042 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Touchtone View Post

I posted the rule from the FCC web site...was not an opinion:
The link to the FCC R&Rs is:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html

Already taken care of in the thread, but thanks for throwing in your two bits.
(BTW: Throwing the entire rulebook as an answer is arrogant.)
Quote:


35+ years in broadcast, I dont misquote the FCC......

I can believe that. You have the social skills of an engineer.

Anyways ... Thanks to John for eventually finding the reference for his initial claim and to Trip an everyone else who has put up with this mess. We'll find the topic soon ... even if it isn't the one in the thread title.
post #3043 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

I can believe that. You have the social skills of an engineer.

You say that like it's a bad thing !

As one who relates that way also ....
post #3044 of 7384
Enough. Or else.
post #3045 of 7384
DTV Transition
Republicans Reps Say Feb. 17 Switch Was Relatively Painless
Some of those who opposed date-change praise smooth transition on original date
By John Eggerton, Broadcasting & Cable, 2/24/2009 11:29:39 AM MT

A hearing on reauthorizing the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act briefly turned into a shout-out for the relative ease of the DTV transition.

During a hearing in the House Communications, Technology and Internet Subcommittee, a number of the Republicans who opposed moving the DTV date pointed out how smoothly the transition had gone for the hundreds of stations who went ahead and pulled the plug on analog on the original Feb. 17 date.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), himself a former broadcaster, said that his office had received no calls on the issue-"and we are in the phone book," he said.

He said that the GM's in his district got "a couple hundred calls" mostly about plugging in boxes or re-scanning for channels. He suggested that, given that relative dearth of outcry, Congress should consider rethinking the $90 million it was planning to spend on DTV outreach, or the $650 million in the economic stimulus package that is going to jump-start the DTV-to-analog converter box coupon program.

Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois said he thought his office had only gotten one complaint, and applauded the relative smoothness of the transition.

Adding his voice to the DTV mutual admiration society was Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska. He said that the two stations out of five in his district that made the switch Feb. 17 received about 550 calls, mostly about set-up and channel scanning, and only 10 calls from people who had not converter box or coupons. He said all those folks were able to get a converter within a day.

No Democrats on the committee expressed similar sentiments, however. Republicans in the House overwhelmingly opposed moving the date or setting aside millions for more education or coupons.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...y_Painless.php
post #3046 of 7384
It still bothers me I totally agree with the Republicans on this issue, but dang it they had, have and got it right.
post #3047 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie View Post

It still bothers me I totally agree with the Republicans on this issue, but dang it they had, have and got it right.

The thing that bothers me is the NAB who didnt come out with stronger wording on their objection to the delay......markets like 134-SETX (Beaumont area) still must maximize their DTV after they switch off their analogs...and that may take another six months! Meanwhile viewers to the north who are in the nulls of the current digital antennas sidemounted are screwed until that time....the faster the Digitals are up on top of the towers and maximized, the faster the viewers can get back to watching OTA...inbetween the time the analogs go off and the digitals maximize, the viewers will have NO OTA period...converter box or no..and this will put it right in the middle of hurricane season!! Not a good time along the Gulf Coast! Houston is ready since they have their digitals pretty well maxed or will flash cut back to their current analog channels at 2000ft....ehhh not a problem! But the markets around Houston are the losers thanks to the delay pushed through...and the consumer is the utlimate loser.....
post #3048 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Touchtone View Post

The thing that bothers me is the NAB who didnt come out with stronger wording on their objection to the delay......markets like 134-SETX (Beaumont area) still must maximize their DTV after they switch off their analogs...and that may take another six months! Meanwhile viewers to the north who are in the nulls of the current digital antennas sidemounted are screwed until that time....the faster the Digitals are up on top of the towers and maximized, the faster the viewers can get back to watching OTA...inbetween the time the analogs go off and the digitals maximize, the viewers will have NO OTA period...converter box or no..and this will put it right in the middle of hurricane season!! Not a good time along the Gulf Coast! Houston is ready since they have their digitals pretty well maxed or will flash cut back to their current analog channels at 2000ft....ehhh not a problem! But the markets around Houston are the losers thanks to the delay pushed through...and the consumer is the utlimate loser.....

I am one of the consumers that has been messed up by this. I have a Analog 9 that is staying on the air. We have a digital 9 (WNBW)locally that must protect the old analog 9 (WFTV). A good part of their main market is also in the null of the protection. Their ERP in there non nulled is 4.9KW, but most of the city of Gainesville, their main market for WNBW is only getting about 2 KW of signal. Where I live I only see a 860 watt ERP station. Most of there main lobe is out into the country side.

They can't take out the null and go omni until WFTV goes silent on analog 9. Then no telling how long it will be before they have the budget to get someone up the tower to take out the null. I don't think they can do it from the ground. The chief told me it's a 4 panel array and the panel facing me is out of phase.

In the mean time I don't have NBC, unless I want to watch WESH analog.

It was all political, in that honey moon, with zero thought. As much brains went into this as a crowd cheering an actor or football team.
post #3049 of 7384
DTV Notes
DTV Oversight Hearing On House Docket
Next up is March 12 hearing on universal service reform
By John Eggerton, Broadcasting & Cable, 2/24/2009 4:51:15 PM MT

Rep. Rick Boucher, chairman of the House Communications, Tech & Internet Subcommittee, said Tuesday that he would hold an oversight hearing on the DTV transition in the spring, "well before" the new June 12 hard date for pulling the plug on analog signals.

The committee's next hearing will be of great interest to the cable industry, however. Boucher said next up will be a
March 12 hearing on universal service reform. Boucher said he hoped to have a bill reforming universal service done in
the next several months.

Boucher said the reason DTV was not "the most immediate" thing on the agenda was that he wanted to wait until the $650 in the economic stimulus package to jump start the converter box coupon program had been freed up and the program "reenergized."

The National Telecommuniations & Information Administration can't start taking millions of coupon requests off the
waiting list until the Office of Management and Budget gives it the OK, which is supposed to happen any time.

Boucher announced that hearing after Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) suggested the committee should look into the need for spending that $650 million, including $90 million for outreach and education, given the fact that the switch by
hundreds of stations on the original date of Feb. 17 had gone so smoothly.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...use_Docket.php
post #3050 of 7384
We have another PRM.

Entravision-owned KDCU-DT, a construction permit for DT-46 in Derby/Wichita, KS, has requested to move to channel 31. It's the latest chapter in an upcoming game of musical chairs in the market.

KWCH-DT 19 is moving to 12.

KWCH bought CW affiliate KSCW and decided to use the channel 19 stuff for it so the stations can be co-located. So they got their post-transition digital moved from 31 to 19.

So now, KDCU wants buy the channel 31 gear that KSCW is abandoning, so they want to relocate their digital to channel 31.

Anyone confused yet?

- Trip
post #3051 of 7384
I have a question that relates to channel changing. I'm sure Trip or someone else will know the answer.

Is it legal for two different stations to use different sub-channels of the same transmitter? I know this has happened on a temporary basis but I'm wondering if it can be done on a permanent basis?

The reason I'm asking this is because I want to drop an e-mail to KAZV, a low power station out of Modesto, complaining that their plan to put a low power digital transmitter on channel 36 is going to result in mutual obliteration of them and KICU at my location. KAZV was originally going to be digital on their analog channel 14 until KTNC received approval for a full power station on Mt. Diablo on channel 14 which will completely blanket their coverage area.

The problem is that KAZV really has no place to go. But I have an idea for them if it's legal. The next town over from Modesto is Ceres, the home of KBSV with a new digital low power transmitter on channel 15. It's a very clear channel out in the valley because 15 can't be used in the Bay Area. KBSV and KAZV have transmitter sites very close together. Both stations have a single 480i channel. At least I'm assuming KAZV is not going hi-def. It would seem like an ideal situation for KAZV to rent a sub-channel from KBSV if the parties could come to an agreement. Seems like the cost would be less for both stations and KAZV would get a much larger coverage area and their interference problems would be gone.

I've attached an image showing the two coverage areas properly scaled on the same FCC map.

Chuck
LL
post #3052 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras View Post

I have a question that relates to channel changing. I'm sure Trip or someone else will know the answer.

Is it legal for two different stations to use different sub-channels of the same transmitter? I know this has happened on a temporary basis but I'm wondering if it can be done on a permanent basis?

Chuck

I think it's legal. Isn't KEMS on KICU (36-2) permanent?

Ron
post #3053 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras View Post

I have a question that relates to channel changing. I'm sure Trip or someone else will know the answer.

Is it legal for two different stations to use different sub-channels of the same transmitter? I know this has happened on a temporary basis but I'm wondering if it can be done on a permanent basis?

The reason I'm asking this is because I want to drop an e-mail to KAZV, a low power station out of Modesto, complaining that their plan to put a low power digital transmitter on channel 36 is going to result in mutual obliteration of them and KICU at my location. KAZV was originally going to be digital on their analog channel 14 until KTNC received approval for a full power station on Mt. Diablo on channel 14 which will completely blanket their coverage area.

The problem is that KAZV really has no place to go. But I have an idea for them if it's legal. The next town over from Modesto is Ceres, the home of KBSV with a new digital low power transmitter on channel 15. It's a very clear channel out in the valley because 15 can't be used in the Bay Area. KBSV and KAZV have transmitter sites very close together. Both stations have a single 480i channel. At least I'm assuming KAZV is not going hi-def. It would seem like an ideal situation for KAZV to rent a sub-channel from KBSV if the parties could come to an agreement. Seems like the cost would be less for both stations and KAZV would get a much larger coverage area and their interference problems would be gone.

I've attached an image showing the two coverage areas properly scaled on the same FCC map.

Chuck

In my market - we have one fullpower Spanish station, (that is doing a single 480i channel), who is carrying a digital of another Spanish station (LP) on a second channel - so I guess it's legal.
post #3054 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post

I think it's legal. Isn't KEMS on KICU (36-2) permanent?

Ron

In the LA market we have KXLA, KJLA and KVMD all carrying each other on subchannels.
post #3055 of 7384
In most cases, it would be legal. However KBSV is licensed as a non-commercial station. I don't know what the regulations are about subchannels on non-commercial allotment.

- Trip
post #3056 of 7384
Thanks guys! I wanted to make sure I didn't sound like a complete idiot when I make that suggestion to them. They probably will ignore me but it's worth a try.

I forgot about 36.2 although the FCC doesn't show anything for KEMS so I don't know what's going there.

Chuck
post #3057 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie View Post

I am one of the consumers that has been messed up by this. I have a Analog 9 that is staying on the air. We have a digital 9 (WNBW)locally that must protect the old analog 9 (WFTV). A good part of their main market is also in the null of the protection. Their ERP in there non nulled is 4.9KW, but most of the city of Gainesville, their main market for WNBW is only getting about 2 KW of signal. Where I live I only see a 860 watt ERP station. Most of there main lobe is out into the country side.

They can't take out the null and go omni until WFTV goes silent on analog 9. Then no telling how long it will be before they have the budget to get someone up the tower to take out the null. I don't think they can do it from the ground. The chief told me it's a 4 panel array and the panel facing me is out of phase.

In the mean time I don't have NBC, unless I want to watch WESH analog.

It was all political, in that honey moon, with zero thought. As much brains went into this as a crowd cheering an actor or football team.


They (WNBW) wont go omni anyway....they have a CP for directional that matches their analog signal......with nulls to the south.....but if they arent covering Gainesville NOW, that sucks.....You can look them up on the FCC web site and see their final coverage pattern....
Yep, this delay and let some go digital NOW was a total trainwreck!!! DUH!!!
(see we engineers do care about the viewers!
post #3058 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

We have another PRM.

Entravision-owned KDCU-DT, a construction permit for DT-46 in Derby/Wichita, KS, has requested to move to channel 31. It's the latest chapter in an upcoming game of musical chairs in the market.

KWCH-DT 19 is moving to 12.

KWCH bought CW affiliate KSCW and decided to use the channel 19 stuff for it so the stations can be co-located. So they got their post-transition digital moved from 31 to 19.

So now, KDCU wants buy the channel 31 gear that KSCW is abandoning, so they want to relocate their digital to channel 31.

Anyone confused yet?

- Trip


I hate to admit it, but it all made sense!!!
post #3059 of 7384
We have lots of this in Bakersfield. KERO-DT RF 10 carries ABC on subchannel 1 which maps to 23-1. Their co-owned Azteca low power station is on subchannel 2 which maps to 42-2. KUVI-DT RF 55 carries MYTV on a subchannel which maps to 45-1. Their co-owned Univision low power station is on a subchannel which maps to 39-1 and their co-owned Telefutura low power station is on a subchannel which maps to 31-1. KBAK-DT RF 33 carries CBS on subchannel 1 which maps to 29-1 and their co-owned FOX low power station on subchannel 2 which maps to 58-2.
post #3060 of 7384
I don't think there's a legal issue, but network contracts may not allow one major network station to carry another network on a subchannel.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread