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 175

post #5221 of 7374
To bad they didn't think about this 10 years ago. Maybe they could have developed a system where they could have condensed 4 or 5 channels in a city onto one frequency. That could have saved everyone a lot of money, reducing the need for transmitter towers and antennas.
post #5222 of 7374
Another of the Multicultural stations has been sold. Paperwork has been filed showing that TCT, owner of WLXI in Greensboro, is buying WRAY in Wilson/Raleigh. The exact same thing happened with then-WOAC now-WRLM in Canton/Cleveland.

WHAS wants more time to test with higher power on 11. They claim that the additional power helps with indoor reception. (I'm not sure I believe that.)

KAYU is finally back on 28.

- Trip
post #5223 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Cross posted

WASHINGTONFederal regulators are considering taking back some airwaves from television broadcasters and auctioning them off to wireless companies to increase the availability of wireless broadband services.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski has warned that the U.S. doesn't have enough airwaves set aside for wireless broadband service in the future, and the agency is looking at a variety of ways to remedy that shortage.

"The record is very clear that we're facing a looming spectrum gap," said Blair Levin, a former telecom analyst who is in charge of crafting the FCC's national broadband plan, which is expected to lay out a variety of things the U.S. can do to increase broadband availability and usage. The plan will be released in February.

It's not clear if the proposal will actually make it into the FCC's final plan. At this stage, FCC officials are mostly trying to get input from broadcasters and others. Station owners are likely to fight the plan, although the FCC is envisioning paying broadcasters for any airwaves that are taken away.

You've gotta be kidding -- they just took over 100 mHz of spectrum from broadcasting with the digital transition, and now they want to take more? The band is crowded now -- how do they propose cramming the same (or more) stations into even less space without massive interference?

And all for the sake of the companies serving masses of glassy-eyed modern consumers who have a stupid and pathological need to be "connected" with the world on their little gizmos 24/7, anywhere, anytime, no matter what else they are doing. God forbid they should be unable to text, IM, or surf the web for even a second while driving, shopping, dining, working, or sitting on the crapper. Why, if that happens, they may be forced to actually interact with the real world, and the psychological consequences could be devastating!

More fuel for the theory that the FCC's ultimate goal is to eliminate free OTA television altogether.
post #5224 of 7374
Remember, the new FCC Chairman comes straight from the wireless industry and he is looking after his buddies like the rest of Washinington.
post #5225 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislav View Post

how do they propose cramming the same (or more) stations into even less space without massive interference?

The way the economic climate for broadcasting and advertiser-supported mass media in general has been deteriorating during the last few years, I wouldn't be surprised to see some stations starting to go dark soon anyway. Some newspapers and magazines have folded already.
post #5226 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislav View Post

You've gotta be kidding -- they just took over 100 mHz of spectrum from broadcasting with the digital transition, and now they want to take more? The band is crowded now -- how do they propose cramming the same (or more) stations into even less space without massive interference?

And all for the sake of the companies serving masses of glassy-eyed modern consumers who have a stupid and pathological need to be "connected" with the world on their little gizmos 24/7, anywhere, anytime, no matter what else they are doing. God forbid they should be unable to text, IM, or surf the web for even a second while driving, shopping, dining, working, or sitting on the crapper. Why, if that happens, they may be forced to actually interact with the real world, and the psychological consequences could be devastating!

More fuel for the theory that the FCC's ultimate goal is to eliminate free OTA television altogether.

Post of the week, IMHO.
post #5227 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislav View Post

You've gotta be kidding -- how do they propose cramming the same (or more) stations into even less space without massive interference?

More fuel for the theory that the FCC's ultimate goal is to eliminate free OTA television altogether.

Actually, each old analog assignment is now a candidate for further spectrum packing.

The real irony here is that the CEA is supporting the concept. That's the same CEA who's members designed converter boxes that the typical user can't program properly.
post #5228 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiVoFishMan View Post

Post of the week, IMHO.

Ya, I agree +1!
post #5229 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Federal regulators are considering taking back some airwaves from television broadcasters and auctioning them off to wireless companies to increase the availability of wireless broadband services.

I don't understand the point - doesn't the whitespace initiative address this?

Seems to me whitespace is a good tradeoff between broadcast TV and broadband. In urban areas there are lots of OTA stations and multiple forms of wired broadband. So there is little need for additional wireless broadband. In rural areas there are few stations and limited wired broadband making wireless ISPs attractive.

Wireless carriers are rolling out 3G data service. I am not aware they face a huge bandwidth crunch. They just got much of the spectrum freed up from TV. Mobile wireless services are power constrained resulting in small coverage area with high degree of frequency reuse. That makes them very spectrum efficient.

I for one have no desire to trade my once every 20-year capital investment in an outdoor antenna for monthly fee.

/Tom
post #5230 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislav View Post

You've gotta be kidding -- they just took over 100 mHz of spectrum from broadcasting with the digital transition, and now they want to take more? The band is crowded now -- how do they propose cramming the same (or more) stations into even less space without massive interference?

And all for the sake of the companies serving masses of glassy-eyed modern consumers who have a stupid and pathological need to be "connected" with the world on their little gizmos 24/7, anywhere, anytime, no matter what else they are doing. God forbid they should be unable to text, IM, or surf the web for even a second while driving, shopping, dining, working, or sitting on the crapper. Why, if that happens, they may be forced to actually interact with the real world, and the psychological consequences could be devastating!

More fuel for the theory that the FCC's ultimate goal is to eliminate free OTA television altogether.

Before 1983 UHF for TV went all teh way to 83. The FCC forced the broadcaster to give up everything from 70-83 in 1983. Most went to wirless companies. Now in 2009 they had to give up 52-69. Once again most of it going to wireless. So since the ealry 80's broadcaster have already given up 40% of thier bandwidth. Wireless companies have more spectrum than the broadcasters. WTF are they doing with it?
post #5231 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

WTF are they doing with it?

Developing paid subscription services to replace the free over the air services they removed? There's little more the telecoms would like to see more than the death of free OTA alternatives to their cable, satellite and wireless packages.
post #5232 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post

Yes, KSDX-LD is now active on Ch9 in San Diego, CA

I still don't understand why they wanted VHF from the main UHF site, Mt. San Miguel. The main upper VHF stations are on Mt. Soledad, which is at a very different angle for much of the San Diego area.
post #5233 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower Guy View Post

That's the same CEA who's members designed converter boxes that the typical user can't program properly.

I find the boxes are easier to program than most HD sets. Reception is #1 issue with VHF-LO and UHF xmitters located more than 15 miles apart and the CW at a third and even more distant location, and all in the same DMA.
post #5234 of 7374
Another article on the spectrum subject:

CEA Funded Study Says Free OTA TV Not Worth Keeping

http://tvtechnology.com/article/89516

Quote:


Another option that I've heard is to eliminate HDTV broadcasts (at least over-the-air) and consolidate multiple broadcasters' SD transmissions into a smaller number of remaining channels. Multiple broadcasters would share one TV channel. This seems to be what Bazelon is proposing when he says, "Alternatively, broadcasters could continue to provide over-the-air broadcasts on a smaller portion of their allocated frequencies, freeing up a significant portion of the band for wireless broadband. This latter option would cost lessan estimated $6 billion in compensation to broadcastersbut only free up about $48 billion worth of spectrum."

So, the future of OTA may be to have a few stations like KJLA in the LA area, with around 1.3-2.6 Mbps per channel, on 9 subs.

Let me guess, these will all be on VHF, since it isn't as valuable?

It sure seems like a lot of money has been spent only to downgrade the whole system now, just to turn free airwaves into pay airwaves.
post #5235 of 7374
Btw, dunno if you guys are aware...but for the record in the Los Angeles market, another sub-channel slot of KTLA I assume (besides 5.2 THIS) is available called "The Tube" on 5.5...my CM picked it up yesterday, no programming as of this writing though.
post #5236 of 7374
The Tube went off the air 2 years ago. Dunno why KTLA still has it listed.
post #5237 of 7374
"FCC Considers Shifting Some TV Airwaves to Broadband"

I've had a feeling of mostly reverence and respect for our government, but this is too much!
post #5238 of 7374
Tonight's FCC action, both are VHF Nightmares:

WREX has requested a power boost from 18 kW to 24.4 kW.

WCYB has filed to locate their fill-in translator on channel 29 at 9.6 kW instead of 28 at 5.1 kW.

- Trip
post #5239 of 7374
I just won an auction for a Sencore SLM1456CM. Finally, a tool for looking at digital signals.

- Trip
post #5240 of 7374
KDMD in Anchorage has petitioned to change its channel from 32 to 33, so as to recycle analog equipment. Not sure why it took this long to figure that out, but there you go.

- Trip
post #5241 of 7374
DTV Notes
KUAC Makes Unusual Digital Switch
Alaska station goes from UHF to VHF

By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/2/2009 2:00:00 AM

After full-power broadcasters ceased analog operations on June 12 and settled into their final digital TV (DTV) assignments, one of the early findings was that stations with VHF channel assignments were experiencing far more reception problems than their UHF counterparts.

Reception issues were particularly prevalent in Eastern cities like Philadelphia and New York, where the number of stations in close proximity meant that VHF stations had to curtail their power to avoid interference and were often left with signals unable to penetrate into apartment buildings for reception on small indoor antennas.

The FCC has since granted power increases to a number of VHF stations, and let others switch their digital assignments to available slots in the UHF band. Raycom Media, for example, has switched WLOX, its Biloxi, Miss. station, from VHF to UHF operation, and plans to do the same at its Jackson, Miss., station, WLBT, next month. And WCPO Cincinnati wants to move from its current VHF Ch. 10 assignment to UHF Ch. 22, even though the Scripps Television station has already received a power increase.

“We're still finding areas where the digital signal is not acceptable and is not being received at all,” says Mike Doback, VP of engineering for Scripps.

But at least one station, KUAC Fairbanks, Alaska, decided to move in the other direction to solve its reception problems. The public broadcaster actually switched in late September from a DTV assignment on UHF Ch. 24 to VHF Ch. 9, its previous analog home, undergoing a “rechannelization” process that required it to go off-air for six days.

Using funds from a Corporation for Public Broadcasting grant, KUAC spent $1.1 million on a new Harris VHF transmitter and ERI transmission line and antenna, which were installed in a tightly coordinated process designed to take advantage of Alaska's brief window for weather conducive to tower work.

The Fairbanks market never had a UHF station until stations began broadcasting DTV. So when KUAC began broadcasting DTV on Ch. 24 in 2004, it didn't expect many viewers to have the proper UHF antenna required to receive the signal. The station also had a relatively low-power allocation for UHF of 79 kilowatts ERP (effective radiated power), and actually went on-air at a licensed power of 69 kW. Initial tests showed reception problems at a range of only 11 miles from the transmitter.

But with roughly 28% of the market relying on over-the-air service instead of pay-TV, plenty of homes were already equipped with roof-mounted VHF antennas, particularly those residing in the “bush” communities on the fringes of the market. Fairbanks also doesn't have a lot of big apartment buildings with viewers relying on indoor antennas. More important, the power costs of running a higher-powered UHF transmitter weren't feasible for a public broadcaster like KUAC.

So the station filed a request with the FCC several years ago to switch its DTV assignment to its old analog position at Ch. 9. While that request was granted, it was only at an effective radiated power of 3.2 kW, which KUAC feared would still result in coverage issues. So it subsequently asked the FCC to maximize its power to 30 kW.

That request was granted in late March, but due to budget issues, scheduling with vendors and tower crews, and Alaska's harsh spring weather, KUAC wasn't able to launch DTV on Ch. 9 on June 12. The complaints from viewers forced to rely on Ch. 24 for service flooded in, as homes in the outer ranges of the Fairbanks market were unable to receive the DTV signal.

“We had hundreds of calls,” says KUAC Director of Engineering Keith Martin. “We knew it was going to happen, but there was nothing we could do about it. We had everything in the works to fix it, but the timing was pushed out to September.”

So KUAC worked with Harris, its prime contractor on the project, to get the work done before the long Alaskan winter set in and with minimum interruption to on-air operations. Besides installing a new transmitter, antenna and transmission line, the tower's foundation had to be reinforced, and new guy wires and guy piers installed. The bulk of the work was done in a week, between Sept. 13 and 20, and the station was off-air from Sept. 14 to 20. Luckily, the weather cooperated.

“The week we had was in the 50s, so it was perfect,” says Nathan Smith, program manager of transmission for Harris.

KUAC did heavy community outreach to alert viewers, including ads in local newspapers and e-mail blasts, and a follow-up round reminding them to rescan their converter boxes or digital TVs to find the station on Ch. 9. Although KUAC had planned to be off-air until Sept. 23, it resumed operations part-time three days earlier, and soon started receiving phone calls from happy viewers.

As Martin puts it: “The impact wasimmediate.”

KUAC’s UHF-to-VHF success story is certainly unusual, says John Howell, manager of installations for Harris. The company is currently working with about 150 stations to improve their DTV coverage, says Howell, but most of them are looking to maximize their power, including several VHF stations in the Plains states. Those stations looking to switch assignments are “predominantly going from VHF to UHF,” says Howell.

According to the FCC, of the 79 full power television stations requesting a channel substitution, 22 stations asked to change their channel allotments from a VHF to a UHF channel. Less than 10 went from UHF to VHF.

The problems suffered by high-V stations like WCPO Cincinnati are somewhat ironic, says Scripps’ Doback, as several years ago stations with a high-V assignment thought they would “be in heaven” because of the expected combination of good signal propagation and low power costs.

“It’s only now that we’ve found out the planning factors were probably wrong in terms of how much power you need to replicate analog service,” says Doback.

Raycom’s VHF reception problems in Biloxi and Jackson were primarily due to adjacent-market, co-channel interference issues that prevented the stations from broadcasting at a high enough power to replicate analog coverage, says Chief Technology Officer Dave Folsom.

“It’s not an indictment of VHF,” says Folsom. “There’s nothing inherently wrong with VHF. It’s just easier to have interference, because it goes out further.”

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...tal_Switch.php
post #5242 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

Another article on the spectrum subject:

CEA Funded Study Says Free OTA TV Not Worth Keeping

http://tvtechnology.com/article/89516



So, the future of OTA may be to have a few stations like KJLA in the LA area, with around 1.3-2.6 Mbps per channel, on 9 subs.

Let me guess, these will all be on VHF, since it isn't as valuable?

It sure seems like a lot of money has been spent only to downgrade the whole system now, just to turn free airwaves into pay airwaves.

So does that mean they have to do coupons again for mp4 stations crammed in VHF?

This is very political, and probably no one wants to post that way or get post banned.

They give one bank $100 billion and get all excited to end OTA for less than half of that?

There are now a handful of people in power that don't care what happens to the Earth or the USA.

Both political parties are as in as deep as the other, so don't go partisan about this.

Neither party can free itself from the oil, medical and now wireless industry.

===========

Now to more technical aspects. If all the UHF channels became twitter and text boxes. Sooner or later still there will not be enough spectrum. This is nothing but a short term profit for grabbing the public airwaves and turning them private for dollars. We could call it Dialing for Dollars.

It was known 20 years ago that the future of digital communications, could not be contained within the wireless electromagnetic spectrum. There was just way too much data. This is a monetary power grab and nothing more.

Two outcomes are likely. One is there will be a glut of wireless frequencies with OTA gone forever. Two, they will run out of wireless room anyway. The only answer then is either better compression techniques or very limited range cell sites so the same frequencies could be reused (new idea? lol).

In the past the FCC allocated different services slices of the LIMITED electromagnetic spectrum. The wireless already has the lion's share now of UHF.
post #5243 of 7374
Copps says BRoadcasters "Deserve to lose spectrum." ?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...r_Spectrum.php
post #5244 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspENC View Post

Copps says BRoadcasters "Deserve to lose spectrum." ?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...r_Spectrum.php

Sort of an update of the Vast Wasteland speech.

He does have a point.
post #5245 of 7374
*headdesk*

- Trip
post #5246 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspENC View Post

Copps says BRoadcasters "Deserve to lose spectrum." ?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...r_Spectrum.php

Copps being Copps. He is a political animal. Biggest butt kisser you will find around. Been like that for years. I don't think this will go anywhere. Congress isn't in any mood to fight the public again about TV. Health care is quite a hand full now. What do you think would happen if C0ongress does away with OTA TV for a PAY service? (sounds like Republican's doesn't it?) Wouldn't want to have to try and spin that one.
post #5247 of 7374
The problem here is that it seems like a never ending spiral here: cable and satellite gain market share, more cable channels (not available OTA) are created, more people subscribe to cable and satellite, viewership of OTA broadcast stations falls, the revenue of OTA stations falls, stations consolidate and throw up "cheap" or even "profitable" so-called programming like infomercials, OTA looks more like a wasteland, fewer people watch it and switch to cable, rinse, lather and repeat.

I was thinking that the combination of the digital transition and the recession could lead to a bit of a resurgence in OTA -- but the way the stations are retrenching (and in the case of our Austin market, we lose broadcast subchannels to Spanish TV), it seems the opposite is happening.
post #5248 of 7374
The ESPN's and regional sports nets have driven so many to get sat. and cable. If it wasn't for these channels and broadcasts, I would not have satellite. The women want Lifetime and the men want sports.
post #5249 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie View Post

In the past the FCC allocated different services slices of the LIMITED electromagnetic spectrum. The wireless already has the lion's share now of UHF.

What I don't understand is how Europe has seemingly avoided the spectrum crunch (for gadgets) w/o even having removed our equivalent of 70 to ~79 yet. I know that the UK is planning to auction off some spectrum, but that's a few years away at least.

Do other countries do a better job of managing spectrum or is it just due to less going to the military? I don't get it.

Why is the FCC so concerned about Broadcast media ownership, which they want to give it to a handful of cell phone companies, etc., which is even more consolidated?
post #5250 of 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon_77 View Post

Why is the FCC so concerned about Broadcast media ownership, which they want to give it to a handful of cell phone companies, etc., which is even more consolidated?

Because the current FCC Chairman is straight from a MAJOR wireless company board room.
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