The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread - Page 195

Also that would mean WTVF would have to abandon Ch 5. Where would they go them with the FCC killing off everything above 31? They won't even be able to keep their tanslator located at Ch 50.


They do know the FCC wants to kill everything above 31 within 10 years? So what is the point?

Hi,

$5, you cannot afford to spend another $5 for a new radio?

To get more stations I spent ~ $100 for a HD radio. And lost frequency response in the deal. But then noise is greatly reduced which was what I wanted. And NO commercials! (KDFC-HD2 San Francisco)

The lowering of the lower limit would be a cheap thing to do, would not increase cost by very much.

SHF

Besides .....


Of course!

That's not the point. Why should I have to throw out a prefectly good and working clock/radio?

One could make the point that one could afford a $50 converter box especially since one had 18 months to save up for it.

I don't think "flock" is the word I'd use to describe extended band deployment. Trickle is more like it. Only 1660 has 10 stations within the US. The others range from 0 to 5.

Have any of the fill-in translators come on the air yet? If so, how are they working out in areas where you can receive both the primary and translator? Any problems with PSIP integration?

Larry
SF

Within 100 miles of San Francisco there are only two channels that are NOT used right now: 20 and 24. There are no stations on 16 and 17, but that's already been assigned to land mobile.

I'm able to receive 30 channels here - RF channels, not counting sub-channels. If you count sub-channels the total is 84! Where do they expect all of these stations to go?

The entire idea of taking away ANY of the TV channels is completely ridiculous!

Larry
SF

The same place that the industry as a whole is going, in the same handbasket...

Another new VHF nightmare this evening. KWES-9 in Odessa wants an increase from 25.7 kW to 45 kW.

Larry: Many fill-in translators are operating. Some are mapped differently while others map the same. I haven't heard of many issues with either set.

- Trip

Of course not! If they follow the DTV approach there will be a coupon program for you to get an add on tuner that tunes the new band and transmits it on one or two old band frequencies. The features on the new tuner will be severely limited by law. The new radio adapter will not be permitted to have a speaker, let alone a CLOCK! We were not allowed to use our DTV coupons to buy new TVs, we could only buy adapters.

(Somewhere I have an add on FM tuner for an AM radio. It was not funded by the government.)

APPLICANTS FOR NEW ANALOG LOW POWER TELEVISION AND TV TRANSLATOR STATIONS MUST CONVERT TO DIGITAL BY MAY 24, 2010.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...A-10-496A1.pdf

And not just low VHF (though it has it worse than high VHF). We had a doozy of a thunderstorm pass through here for a few minutes yesterday evening. The OTA UHFs were just fine through it all. The Fox affiliate on RF 7 here in the Austin market was garbled and stuttering frequently, only to be fine again as soon as it passed.

Has there been any date announced for the conversion of existing low power and translator stations?

Larry
SF

Not that I have heard but I would suspect this may be the first shot across the bow.

Well all TV stations licenses expire between Oct 1st 2012 and August 1st 2015. So I suspect as the LP and translator stations analog licenses expire they won't be allowed to renew them. Thus their only choices will be either go digital or not air at all. This would fit into the FCC's plan to shrink the TV spectrum starting in 2015.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/files/tv-dates.pdf

Presuming the questions were formulated correctly, this report is disturbing:

http://www.radio-info.com/sections/2...onedison-study

The lead is:

``For the first time more people would choose to eliminate television from their lives than the Internet, if they were forced to choose. That's the bottom line of a new study from Arbitron and Edison Research. It's still close - 49% to 48%. [...] when we first asked this question in 2001, the spread was 72% for eliminating Internet and 26% for eliminating television.''

Those same storm systems made it near-impossible to watch KCWX-DT (RF5) with the frequent freeze-ups and pixelation from the sferics. Their antenna is 46 miles away (23-kw) and anytime storms get between here and there you just have to wait it out. However, it's not likely they'd be the first one to break in with any severe weather info anyway that could be missed/garbled. With NTSC one could tell immediately that sferics were there causing the problem (and not wonder if multipath, etc)

Actually licenses (radio and TV) expire by regions not all at one time so some stations would expire in 2012 and some in 2015 and some in 2013 and 2014 as well. Even full power analogs never had a definitive expiration date until after Congress pass the bill and even then that date didn't hold so just because a license has an expiration date printed on it, doesn't mean it is THE DATE. Until the FCC decrees date X is the last day of analog LP/translator broadcasting, there isn't a date set.

And if you actually bothered to read the link you'd see I already knew they expire by region. I was trying to keep the post simple. Me explaining that licenses expire by region was not needed to make my point.


hence why I stated all TV stations licenses expire between Oct 1st 2012 and August 1st 2015

which part of BETWEEN 2012 and 2015 did you didn't get?

Are you trying to be argumentative or did you fail to read the link I posted?


You still don't seem to get it. For example licenses in District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia expire on Oct 1, 2012. The FCC does NOT have to renew these licenses. So if your an analog LP and the FCC doesn't renew your licenses guess what, you can't be on the air now can you? So your only option would be to broadcast in digital. Why would the FCC give these stations another 8 year license? So they can stay on the air until 2023 in some cases?

Political comments and replies deleted.

In reality I think this poses a false dichotomy because I think it's pretty clear that these media are converging and people will be increasingly "watching TV" on the Internet. In other words, maybe part of the reason people would be more willing to give up TV "as we know it" is because they understand that TV's content will be increasingly be delivered online.

I think you don't get it. I will say it again, UNTIL THE FCC SAYS, DATE X IS THE END OF ANALOG LP/TRANSLATOR BROADCASTING, THE EXPIRATION DATE ON THE LICENSE IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE FINAL SHUTDOWN DATE. AS IT WAS WITH THE FULL POWER STATIONS.

Got it?

Are you trying to be argumentative

This just gets funnier and funnier. Thanks KenH for the moderation.

Nope. What part don't you get? I believe On Oct 1, 2012 analog LP and translators in District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia will no longer be on the air. Got it? I'm not sure why you want to argue about this? I stated an opinion and you want to start crap. WTF is your problem? Did I say that it was factual? No. I just used logic. Let's use logic together shall we?

A) The FCC will make analog LP and translator station stop broadcasting in analog eventually. FACT.

B) EVERY LP and translators license expires between Oct 1st 2012 and Aug 1st 2015. FACT.

C) The FCC wants to start allocating more TV spectrum to mobile companies starting in 2015. FACT

LOGIC dictates the time to make sations stop broadcasting in analog is when their licenses expire at the latest. Although they could make them end sooner. I'll bet any amount you wish that by Aug 1st 2015 there will not be ANY analog stations left broadcasting in the US. Do you want to take that bet or not.

You can be logical all you want but until the FCC states on a certain date all analog LP/Translator must terminate, those stations can still continue to operate/renew their licenses. Many full power analog stations had expiration dates PAST June 12, 2009, but are they broadcasting now? Nope. And the ones that were renewed between 2005 and 2009 had a exipration date of February 17, 2009 to conincide with the announced digital transition, but did those stations apply for a "renewal" to go to June 12th? Nope. They continued by FCC decree.

So much for your "logic." When you get a better understanding of how the FCC really works, you will see, I am not the one with the "problem."

I agree with your logic and hope that if non-renewal of analog translators is the official plan that the FCC makes a suitable announcement soon enough that the remaining analog stations can make appropriate plans to become digital.

Then again, not much notice is being given to new analog translator applicants - basically telling them not to bother building an analog service as these new stations MUST be digital after May 24th (less than two months).

Not allowing new ones does show the intent to shut down analog translators.

As prohibited by federal law. You do understand that a license, regardless of expiration, is a temporary thing that can be taken away by the government? The government gave and the government took away.

That is the EXACT point I have been trying to make. An expiration date can be trumped by the authorizing agency pre or post.

My own guess is that within 5 years, all analog stations will be silent, but until the FCC says that, those stations can continue as they are and if their renewal comes up before that, unless the FCC hasn't said anything different, they can file for renewal. The length of time the renewal would be active is totally up the to the FCC at that point. But until the FCC rules on that, it is business as usual.

And for the record, one of my duties at work is to deal with the FCC on licensing issues so I feel I do have some first hand knowledge on what the FCC wants and does since I deal with them on issues like this frequently.

The FCC may want to but it will be very difficult in some of the major markets. In the Pittsburgh market 6 of the 9 local full power stations are on channels 38 and higher including 3 of the four major network affiliates. All seven high Vhf channels are already alloted to two Pittsburgh and five adjacent market stations and the service contours of three of those adjacent market stations reach into the city limits of Pittsburgh itself. At least five low UHF channels are knocked out for use by TV stations by land mobile. None of the stations will willingly relocate to low VHF and there are interference concerns with the remaining channels under 31. Finally there are (or soon will be) the low power UHF digitals including fill-in translators.

On the other side of the state are the much more crowded airwaves of Philadelphia. Unless we have a second digital transition utilizing MPEG4 technology it doesn't seem possible.

In areas like here in Northeast Ohio, allocations are scarce already. We have a decent number of markets squeezed in next to each other, and have to deal with Canadian allocations just across the lake.

One of our analog LPs has filed a digital app for displacement from 35 to 16, with a detailed argument/request that it use a channel listed for land mobile in this market. (One of their arguments? The local ABC affiliate is set up already on RF 15.) Another analog LP station has filed an app for the digital RF channel that is supposed to open up when another full-power station moves to the old analog channel of another full-power station, which stayed on its pre-transition digital channel.

The FCC slicing off more TV spectrum is only going to turn this into a nightmare, and that's not including the two VHF "problem children" in the market - one of which, the CBS affiliate, has filed for a UHF fill-in translator in the southern end of the market.

Speaking of which, it's not a fill-in translator per se, but one of the local PBS affiliates converted an analog translator to digital. Last time I was over there, it was pumping out the same PSIP info as the main station, leading to two 45-1's/2/3/etc. on the digital TV dial in areas that can receive both signals...