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 234

post #6991 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

The plot thickens. WCYB has now also petitioned to relocate to channel 29. In direct conflict with the petition from WJHL.

What took them so long? I wonder if WJHL's filing was the impetus for WCYB to finally pull the trigger.
post #6992 of 7384
KTTV, KCOP, and KNTV seem to have acceptable coverage with their 100+kW facilities in the upper half of high VHF. I've yet to see a true success story on low VHF, unless you count the success Comcast has in Philly because of people giving up on antennas and getting cable in order to receive WPVI.
post #6993 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post

KTTV, KCOP, and KNTV seem to have acceptable coverage with their 100+kW facilities in the upper half of high VHF. I've yet to see a true success story on low VHF, unless you count the success Comcast has in Philly because of people giving up on antennas and getting cable in order to receive WPVI.

Well I will say that WTFV in Nashville on RF 5 is about the easiest Nashville station for me to get in in Camden, TN which is about 75 miles from the tower. It's broadcasting at 22.5 kW which I don't think is particularly high for low-VHF and I can get it in better than WKRN which is on RF 27 broadcasting at the max 1000 kW for UHF and is 5 miles closer. In fact WNPT which in on Hi-VHF channel 8 and is in the same location as WKRN and comes in better than WKRN even though it broadcasts at a measly 17.5 kW. Which is very low power for Hi-VHF.

So at least for me VHF is better. That being said it takes a huge fricken antenna to get channel 5 in because of the wavelength size of RF 5. So I liked the fact WTVF asked to move to channel 25. I just wish they would broadcast it so it has the same service contour as channel 5 and not a smaller one.
post #6994 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by re_nelson View Post

The section on RabbitEars is "VHF Nightmares" and that seems to be the overwhelming case for those stations moving to VHF after the transition.

What are some of the VHF "Success Stories" out there? I take it that Fred Lass of WRGB and Frederick Vobbe of WLIO are still advocates of VHF. Right?

VHF low band has pluses and minuses. Low band works far better than UHF in heavily shadowed areas. Once you leave the Albany/Schenectady area the terrain is challenging for TV coverage. Those are the locations that have always had large outdoor antennas, which are needed for low band VHF.

Low band VHF can't be considered as a whole. Channels 2 - 4 are not as favorable as channels 5 and 6. Channels 5 & 6 are better than than channels 2 - 4 because the man made noise is lower on 5 & 6. Due to an antennas interaction with the ground in front of the antenna, an aerial installed too close to the ground works better on channel 5 & 6 than channels 2 - 4. Of course, UHF works better than low band with indoor antennas.

Albany was already a mixed VHF/UHF market with WXXA on channel 7 WNYT on channel 12 and WNYA on channel 13. There were no VHF high band channels available that made sense.

WRGB always had significant viewership in the outlying areas. Channel 39 was not reaching them. We felt that there was little chance that the FCC would raise the power limit on UHF. We gambled that the FCC would raise the power limit on VHF. Originally WRGB was assigned 4.64 KW ERP. We built a facility that could run 11.5 KW ERP. We were at 11.5 ERP KW on July 1, 2009; 18 days after the analog shutdown. It took Canadian approval to go to 30.2 KW; which we did on February 1, 2010. The extra transmitter power came from an analog transmitter purchased from WSYX Columbus, OH that we converted to digital. If we were allowed to do so, that transmitter could get us as high as 45 KW. Electric cost was never a factor for us. At the present time our power bill for channel 6 is 38% lower than it was on channel 39.

WRGB's UHF transmission equipment, which was using an MSDC klystron, has been retuned to channel 43 for use with our sister station, WCWN. WCWN's DTV system had been side mount directional and was using a less efficient IOT based transmitter.

I suspect that many VHF stations are looking for a UHF channel in order to switch to a viable M/H channel. Because we are a duopoly with both VHF and UHF channels that's not an issue.

We also run CBS programming on a subchannel of WCWN where indoor reception is fine. If we didn't have the UHF subchannel we'd be missing many inner-city viewers.

Bottom line, 30.2 KW on channel 6 isn't really enough for a city located 14 miles from our tower. Yet 30.2 KW is working well to distant viewers although our far-distant coverage remains lower than analog had been. This is because some viewers had been living with pictures that were below TASO grade 5 that are now below the digital threshold.
post #6995 of 7384
The FCC put the kabosh on any more NPRMs for channel changes effective immediately. This is to help facilitate use of the spectrum for the broadband project, and to "repackage full power television stations" for effective use of the broadcast television spectrum...

Is the broadcast television fat lady singing already?
post #6996 of 7384
Scripps has hooked up with Live Well Network so like KSHB will be adding it.
post #6997 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

The FCC put the kabosh on any more NPRMs for channel changes effective immediately. This is to help facilitate use of the spectrum for the broadband project, and to "repackage full power television stations" for effective use of the broadcast television spectrum...

Lovely.

- Trip
post #6998 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

The FCC put the kabosh on any more NPRMs for channel changes effective immediately. This is to help facilitate use of the spectrum for the broadband project, and to "repackage full power television stations" for effective use of the broadcast television spectrum...

Source?
post #6999 of 7384
post #7000 of 7384
Thanks, Trip.

Can't really say this is unexpected. I'd sort of figured that the recent spate of channel change apps was in anticipation of just such a move by the FCC...

In fact, I can't help but wonder if some of those applying for channels 31-51 are just trying to position themselves for a share of the auction money if/when those are approved.
post #7001 of 7384
Time for a "UHF NIghtmares" page as stations get repacked?
post #7002 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

In fact, I can't help but wonder if some of those applying for channels 31-51 are just trying to position themselves for a share of the auction money if/when those are approved.

I doubt it. The very recent petitions are either below channel 31 or the only available "clean" channel was above 31.

- Trip
post #7003 of 7384
I guess WTVF got their permission to move to 25 just in time. Since the FCC wants 31-51 I don't see why stations still can't request moves to channels below 31. I'm pretty sure if some station on say channel 48 want to move hi-VHF the FCC would slobber all over that request.
post #7004 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

I guess WTVF got their permission to move to 25 just in time. Since the FCC wants 31-51 I don't see why stations still can't request moves to channels below 31. I'm pretty sure if some station on say channel 48 want to move hi-VHF the FCC would slobber all over that request.

If the FCC does do the repacking below channel 31, stations will have to move, again. It will make the repacking hard if stations are still requesting changes. The FCC did the same thing in 1997 when they came out with the first DTV channel allotment.

It is showing more and more that this will go to court before it happens. More and more people are coming out that this tremendous bandwidth requirement is not needed and there is plenty of non TV spectrum available that is being underutilized by the wireless industry already. If they were to use what they already have allocated, the requirement for additional spectrum would be reduced by a half. But of course, the wireless industry doesn't want that that little bit of info that they are warehousing spectrum to get out. That defeats the purpose of this land grab and that is all that it is.
post #7005 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

If the FCC does do the repacking below channel 31, stations will have to move, again. It will make the repacking hard if stations are still requesting changes. The FCC did the same thing in 1997 when they came out with the first DTV channel allotment.

It is showing more and more that this will go to court before it happens. More and more people are coming out that this tremendous bandwidth requirement is not needed and there is plenty of non TV spectrum available that is being underutilized by the wireless industry already. If they were to use what they already have allocated, the requirement for additional spectrum would be reduced by a half. But of course, the wireless industry doesn't want that that little bit of info that they are warehousing spectrum to get out. That defeats the purpose of this land grab and that is all that it is.

Most of the spectrum the wireless companies are stockpiling are the AWS & PCS spectrums in smaller markets (not as much in the largest markets). Verizon Wireless is currently sitting on their PCS spectrum in rural markets, plus they're sitting on all their AWS spectrum. AT&T is doing the same thing. They're already trying to buy T-Mobile USA for T-Mobile's AWS spectrum, so they can use that for LTE in markets they didn't get any 700mhz band licenses.

The way I see it is that Verizon & AT&T only want the spectrum that's currently being used for TV for themselves. They don't really like the higher frequencies, & want to get rid of more TV channels, so they can have the lower frequencies. It's also a move to get rid of local TV (I stand by this statement that this is the current FCC's plan), & force people to get cable or satellite. If that were to happen, I'll just do without TV, because it's gotten too expensive for me to get. Also, for people I know who still have cable or satellite, have complained that there's still not a lot of good programming on. The current method for cramming TV stations into the existing VHF band & lower UHF band will cause a number of stations to go off the air (especially low power stations). The FCC would have to address the Land Mobile issue as they're using frequencies used by channels 14-20. For Chicago, channels 14 & 15 are off limits to TV broadcast. That likely prevents 16 too, due to being so close to channel 15. For New York & Philadelphia, I hear 14-20 are off limits. I forgot what's off limits in each market, but due to the channels being used in the other market being adjacent to those channels, the adjacent channels are off limits as well. Had Land Mobile not occupied channels 14 - 20, the Chicago market would have been allocated channel 14 for Joliet, & 66 (before it was eliminated) might have gone to Elgin instead of Joliet.
post #7006 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

The plot thickens. WCYB has now also petitioned to relocate to channel 29. In direct conflict with the petition from WJHL.

- Trip

What is wrong with 28? Looking at the RE search, it is available for Zone II and one could get 28 and the other 29? WCYB was on 28, pre-transition, though at lower power (182.5kW, it appears).

As it is, 29 would be short-spaced to WXLV.
post #7007 of 7384
28 has adjacent channel issues with WKPT-27. When WCYB wanted to light up channel 28 as a fill-in translator they filed an interference study, and they managed to max out while keeping below 0.5% interference at the amazingly huge power level of 5.1 kW.

WKPT really should return to 19, as it would allow WCYB to light their 28 facility back up and eliminate co-channel concerns with WCCB in Charlotte, concerns which I would imagine have to exist in some of the mountainous areas of North Carolina.

- Trip
post #7008 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

28 has adjacent channel issues with WKPT-27.

But they wouldn't if they colocated the transmitters. Even as it is, they appear to be only a couple miles apart. I thought that was well within acceptable limits for digital adjacents. Am I misremembering or has that changed?
post #7009 of 7384
It's acceptable so long as the stations are of similar power levels and antenna patterns. WCYB-28 is an omni while WKPT-27 is highly directional.

Honestly, this particular case doesn't make any sense to me either given the power levels and terrain involved, plus the fact that it worked just fine before the transition. I'm just going by what the interference analysis said.

- Trip
post #7010 of 7384
In Bakersfield we have KUVI on 45 at 620,000 watts and KCET's translator on 46 at 15,000 watts. KUVI's tower is on Mt. Adelaide, I'm not sure if KCET's translator's is there or on Mt. Breckenridge. We have KBAK on RF33 at 100something thousand watts and KCBT-LP on 34 at 15,000 watts. KBAK is on Mt. Breckenridge and KCBT on Mt. Adelaide. I can receive KBAK and KCBT easily. Adjacent-channel interference doesn't seem to be an issue. I have to adjust the rabbit ears to get a lock on the KCET translator. I don't know if adjacent channel interference is the issue or not. There did appear to be some when both 45 and 46 were analog. 3ABN's low power analog 24 is drowning in digital snow from adjacent channel interference from KGET's 250,000 watts on RF25. It had even more interference when KERO was on analog 23. KVPT's translator on 18 never seemed to have any interference from KGET when KGET was on analog 17 with 5 million watts. Both were on Mt. Adelaide.
post #7011 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

It's acceptable so long as the stations are of similar power levels and antenna patterns. WCYB-28 is an omni while WKPT-27 is highly directional.

Yes, but they all (WJHL, WCYB, and WKPT) serve the same market, so if highly directional is acceptable for one, it should be just as acceptable for the others. This is precisely the sort of FCC idiocy I was just griping about in the spectrum thread.

Quote:


Honestly, this particular case doesn't make any sense to me either given the power levels and terrain involved, plus the fact that it worked just fine before the transition.

Agreed.
post #7012 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Yes, but they all (WJHL, WCYB, and WKPT) serve the same market, so if highly directional is acceptable for one, it should be just as acceptable for the others.

I still lack TSReader data for WKPT because nobody I've been able to get data from can seem to receive it cleanly, so I'm not sure "acceptable" is the word I'd use. Anecdotal, I know, but I haven't heard great things about the WKPT signal even without that.

- Trip
post #7013 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

In Bakersfield we have KUVI on 45 at 620,000 watts and KCET's translator on 46 at 15,000 watts. KUVI's tower is on Mt. Adelaide, I'm not sure if KCET's translator's is there or on Mt. Breckenridge. We have KBAK on RF33 at 100something thousand watts and KCBT-LP on 34 at 15,000 watts. KBAK is on Mt. Breckenridge and KCBT on Mt. Adelaide. I can receive KBAK and KCBT easily. Adjacent-channel interference doesn't seem to be an issue. I have to adjust the rabbit ears to get a lock on the KCET translator. I don't know if adjacent channel interference is the issue or not. There did appear to be some when both 45 and 46 were analog. 3ABN's low power analog 24 is drowning in digital snow from adjacent channel interference from KGET's 250,000 watts on RF25. It had even more interference when KERO was on analog 23. KVPT's translator on 18 never seemed to have any interference from KGET when KGET was on analog 17 with 5 million watts. Both were on Mt. Adelaide.

It's one thing if you're agreeing to receive interference, as a low-power stations would next to a full-power. It's another thing to cause interference to another broadcaster. You can agree to accept whatever interference you want.

In this case, if WKPT was moving to 27 next to WCYB-28 and had to accept extra interference from WCYB, it would be no problem.

- Trip
post #7014 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

I still lack TSReader data for WKPT because nobody I've been able to get data from can seem to receive it cleanly, so I'm not sure "acceptable" is the word I'd use. Anecdotal, I know, but I haven't heard great things about the WKPT signal even without that.

Beside the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

In this case, if WKPT was moving to 27 next to WCYB-28 and had to accept extra interference from WCYB, it would be no problem.

It would also be no problem if WCYB and WJHL were willing to conform their patterns to match WKPT so that they could use 28 and 29.

The point is, each of them have market monopolies on major networks, and so for OTA to be competitive in the market, substantial numbers of people need to be able to conveniently receive ALL of them OTA, not just one or two. This is not the 50s, 60s, or 70s. Outside of readers and posters in this thread, most people today are NOT going to invest substantial money and/or effort to deal with individual problem stations. If they can’t easily get all the stations they want, they will turn to MVPDs.

Or in other words, OTA is really only as competitive as its weakest link. This is something the FCC and many broadcasters cannot seem to grasp. United, OTA broadcasters stand a chance of surviving. Divided, they probably will not.
post #7015 of 7384
It is really quite simple. The high power non-directional stations have found channels where their signal fits without interference (or with acceptable interference) to other full power stations. The adjusted power directional stations (especially the highly directional ones) couldn't find a non-directional channel at the power they want to run. (They could run non-directional at the highest power possible without exceeding whatever point on the map they are protecting - but by going directional they can recoup at least some of the lost audience ... often they can cover the core audience in the market with a well designed directional and not lose audience proportional to their geographic loss.)

If you want all stations in the market to have the same power and pattern you need to find frequencies for every station in the market that do not interfere with neighboring markets. Good luck with that in a larger market.

If the FCC consolidates stations one will find more stations with the same power/pattern (sharing the same RF channel) but with less channels for TV there is a fair chance that the coverage will be less than today. Personally I believe it is good that stations can expand to cover as much geography as possible ... I certainly would not want to limit coverage to the worst signal in each market.
post #7016 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by justalurker View Post

It is really quite simple. The high power non-directional stations have found channels where their signal fits without interference (or with acceptable interference) to other full power stations.

Ahem. I think the FCC found a number of those channels when it made up the transition table of assignments. Some stations were lucky and/or favored, others not so much.

Quote:


Personally I believe it is good that stations can expand to cover as much geography as possible ... I certainly would not want to limit coverage to the worst signal in each market.

Well, not necessarily the worst signal, especially not in the large markets.

But in the case at hand, if WCYB and WJHL don't want match the pattern of WKPT, then according to FCC regs as Trip understands them, 28 cannot be used.

That means that either (a) WCYB and WJHL must share channel 29 as the FCC is now proposing to permit, or (b) one station gets channel 29 and the other gets left in the cold.

But in case (b), the station left out will still have a local monopoly on a major network, and viewers that want that net will turn to MVPDs, thereby reducing OTA market share and strengthening the argument that spectrum should be reassigned because it is not being effectively used.

I think operating 28 and 29 at a reduced pattern would be preferable to (a) or (b).
post #7017 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Ahem. I think the FCC found a number of those channels when it made up the transition table of assignments. Some stations were lucky and/or favored, others not so much.

The first round, decades ago (likely before you were born), the assignments were the FCC's idea. But in the years following potential stations petitioned to modify the table of allotments to add new channels and modified their licenses to expand beyond the initial coverage. In the digital conversion the FCC attempted to match the analog coverage (or so was the theory).

Quote:
Well, not necessarily the worst signal, especially not in the large markets.

Don't count on it being the best signal ... especially IF the FCC condenses the broadcast band. But the point is that you're complaining that some stations have better coverage than others. The only way to make all stations in a market equal would be to give them equal facilities. The only way to give them equal facilities is to reduce the coverage to the lowest remaining station.

Combining licenses might allow the worst few stations in the market to "pair up" with better stations and increase coverage ... but to make it "fair" (as you seem to be requesting) and give equal coverage to all the best few stations in the market would have to reduce their coverage ... even if there was no interference based reason to reduce their signal.

While it may be "unfair" that some stations have better coverage than others, handicapping the stations with better coverage is not a good option. We would move from areas without all of their network stations to areas with no TV at all. Fair or not, that doesn't seem like a good choice.
post #7018 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

I doubt it. The very recent petitions are either below channel 31 or the only available "clean" channel was above 31.

So (and you know I'd ask), how does this affect WJW asking to go back to 31, one channel on the wrong side of the divide?

They presumably got their allocation request in before the freeze, but if the FCC wants 31-51 for this repacking...
post #7019 of 7384
It got in before the freeze, so it should continue being processed.

- Trip
post #7020 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

It got in before the freeze, so it should continue being processed.

Understood. I'm just wondering what happens if the FCC grabs 31 and above for broadband. Will all stations, including a reallocated WJW/31, be forced to move?
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