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 244

post #7291 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras View Post

At the end of the presentation it is stated that OTA can never compete with satellite or cable in terms of bandwidth efficiency. I assume this is because the latter two don't need any error correcting. But it is also stated that OTA has its own advantages.

Over the air suffers from multipath that is not present in satellite signals.

Satellite signals suffer from the extreme distances between the satellite and the ground station and the high gain antennas needed to compensate.

Bottom line, if you use the right antenna for terrestrial broadcasting it can work fine, but mistakes in antenna selection and installation are well documented in these forums. For mobile reception, a large, perfectly aimed satellite antenna is impractical, so over the air wins.

I'd suggest that few try to install their own satellite antenna, but many attempt to self-install an over the air antenna. The gap in experience can explain many of the OTA miscues.
post #7292 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower Guy View Post

Over the air suffers from multipath that is not present in satellite signals.

I'd suggest that few try to install their own satellite antenna, but many attempt to self-install an over the air antenna. The gap in experience can explain many of the OTA miscues.

I have had to find that out by trial and error. I have installed several outdoor antennas for family, friends, and coworkers. Most got beautiful results immediately while a couple were far less than ideal. I spent many hours wringing hands and pulling hair out before learning what the cause was. Short term multi-path overloading the tuner being the biggest bug-a-boo I have run into. I now know what to look for and be aware of when selecting a location to install, but those with less experience may have given it one shot, got less than desirable results, and given up...
post #7293 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras View Post

I assume this is because the latter two don't need any error correcting.

256-QAM used on US cable systems is still coded, but fairly lightly. The symbol rate for 256-QAM is 5.360537 Msps. There are 8 bits per symbol, so the raw bitrate is 42.88430 Mbps. The payload rate is 38.81070 Mbps, so there's only about 10% wasted in error correction coding. Compare that with 40% for 8-VSB, and you can see what the author was getting at.

Cable 256-QAM is described in this standard.

http://www.scte.org/documents/pdf/St...SCTE072006.pdf

Satellite is similar, although they use a little more coding. Typically a 3/4, 5/6, 6/7 or 7/8 rate FEC.

Ron
post #7294 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

I have had to find that out by trial and error. I have installed several outdoor antennas for family, friends, and coworkers. ... I now know what to look for and be aware of when selecting a location to install...

Location, location, location... this has been the biggest problem for lots of folks here in the SF Bay Area. We've found that just a few feet one way or the other, either horizontally or vertically, can make a big difference in what you receive. Moving the antenna from one side of the house to the other or raising it or lowering it a few feet can solve a lot of problems.

I recently had a two man crew work on my antennas. Used to do it myself, but I'm getting too old to do it now. They installed two push-up masts and once the antennas were installed they raised and lowered them to find the best spots. I now get some distant stations up to 7 dB stronger that I used to. Same antennas, same location on the roof, just different heights... in this case it's higher in both cases.

I think a 29 dB signal on channel 32 from 65 miles away is pretty good.

Larry
SF
post #7295 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kenney View Post

Location, location, location... this has been the biggest problem for lots of folks here in the SF Bay Area. We've found that just a few feet one way or the other, either horizontally or vertically, can make a big difference in what you receive. Moving the antenna from one side of the house to the other or raising it or lowering it a few feet can solve a lot of problems.

I recently had a two man crew work on my antennas. Used to do it myself, but I'm getting too old to do it now. They installed two push-up masts and once the antennas were installed they raised and lowered them to find the best spots. I now get some distant stations up to 7 dB stronger that I used to. Same antennas, same location on the roof, just different heights... in this case it's higher in both cases.

I think a 29 dB signal on channel 32 from 65 miles away is pretty good.

Larry
SF

It is the same here. A few feet here or there can mean all the difference. We don't have hills here. It is about as flat as you can get... You would think it would ne a piece of cake. Ah, not so. It's the trees with their little year 'round sub-tropical leaves flickering in the wind. They wreak havok with multi-path...
post #7296 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

It is the same here. A few feet here or there can mean all the difference. We don't have hills here. It is about as flat as you can get... You would think it would ne a piece of cake. Ah, not so. It's the trees with their little year 'round sub-tropical leaves flickering in the wind. They wreak havok with multi-path...

Hi,

We had a big windstorm here in California. I was trying to watch the noon news on two stations, RF 29 and RF 44. Both were very choppy on short time frames. This was something new that I had not see before.

I looked out my window and tall trees ~ 100 feet away were swinging like mad.

The temperature inversion over the bay and the mountain reflections are what I usually fight, RF 29 and RF 30 were gone for a while this fall, now back. That also was new. (Early rain?)

Leaves on the trees will be soon gone. I can remember ~ 1975 coming home early the day before DST ended so I could rake the last of the leaves with some light, now mid December and lots of leaves are still on.

SHF
post #7297 of 7384
Quote:


tall trees ~ 100 feet away were swinging like mad.

Dynamic multi-path.
post #7298 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADTech View Post

Dynamic multi-path.

So, out of curiosity, other than short term multi-path and dynamic multi-path, could you provide a list of other mulri-path issues that are commonly encountered?
post #7299 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

could you provide a list of other mulri-path issues that are commonly encountered?

As long as we are playing 20 questions.

Other then narrowing beam width is there anything else an antenna designer is able to do to minimize multipath?

/tom
post #7300 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tschmidt View Post

As long as we are playing 20 questions.

Other then narrowing beam width is there anything else an antenna designer is able to do to minimize multipath?

Some designs can reject multipath without losing directionality. Bow-tie antennas (like the coat-hanger ) are supposed to be good at that.
post #7301 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tschmidt View Post

As long as we are playing 20 questions.

Other then narrowing beam width is there anything else an antenna designer is able to do to minimize multipath?

/tom

Better front to back and front to side ratios will reduce multipath.

In a situation where the multipath is airplane flutter, reduced vertical beamwidth also helps.
post #7302 of 7384
Is the deadline to clear channels 52 through 69 of all TV stations still December 31, 2011?

Ron
post #7303 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post

Is the deadline to clear channels 52 through 69 of all TV stations still December 31, 2011?

Ron

I don't think so... As far as I know, there is an analog channel 56 (KQHO-LP) near Houston that has a CP to move into Houston and change the City of License from Beaumont to Houston...

The CP expires on 09-01-2015.
post #7304 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post

Is the deadline to clear channels 52 through 69 of all TV stations still December 31, 2011?

Ron

Yes it is, but that has not stopped many rural translators from filing STAs seeking to delay it another few months. I don't think the FCC has acted on them yet.

- Trip
post #7305 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

I don't think so... As far as I know, there is an analog channel 56 (KQHO-LP) near Houston that has a CP to move into Houston and change the City of License from Beaumont to Houston...

The CP expires on 09-01-2015.

Hate to tell you but in 2 days it won't be on the air.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post

Yes it is, but that has not stopped many rural translators from filing STAs seeking to delay it another few months. I don't think the FCC has acted on them yet.

- Trip

The FCC won't delay anything.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...-11-1375A1.pdf

Released: August 11, 2011

1. In this Order we deny a Motion forStay (“Stay Request”) filed by the National Translator Association (“NTA”) of the effectiveness of paragraphs 23 through 35 of the Second Report and Order adopted in the above-captioned proceeding,

2. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission required low power television and TV translator stations (collectively, “low power television stations”) on the “out-of-core” channels in the 700 MHz band (former television channels 52-69) to transition to an “in-core” digital channel(television channels 2-51 excluding channel 37) by December 31, 2011.

The Commission found that low power television stations have had sufficient notice that they would be required to clear the 700 MHz band and that the continued successful development of new commercial wireless and public safety facilities in the 700 MHz band will be greatly facilitated by requiring that all remaining analog and digital low power television stations be cleared from these channels by that date.

In addition, the Commission required that all low power television stations with facilities on channels 52-69, that have not already done so, to submit a digital displacement application proposing an in-core channel no later than September 1, 2011.

Stations that failed to submit the required displacementapplication by the September 1, 2011 deadline would be required to cease operation of their out-of-core facility by December 31, 2011 and would lose their authorization.

The Commission provided that stations could seek a waiver of the September 1, 2011 application filing deadline; however, all out-of-core operations must cease by December 31, 2011.
post #7306 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Hate to tell you but in 2 days it won't be on the air.






[/b]

Doesn't bother me. I was just going by the expiration date on the CP. In fact, even though the station was granted a License To Cover by the FCC, it actually was never built! It has never been on the tower they claim to be on. Has never broadcast a signal. I will be glad to see it deleted and removed from the database. We have a couple more in our area that have done the same thing. Two, I think are under investigation now, one I have word will be deleted soon, and another that needs to be investigated. I would like for them to be prosecuted for making willful mis-statements on government documents, to tell the truth...
post #7307 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

Doesn't bother me. I was just going by the expiration date on the CP. In fact, even though the station was granted a License To Cover by the FCC, it actually was never built! It has never been on the tower they claim to be on. Has never broadcast a signal. I will be glad to see it deleted and removed from the database. We have a couple more in our area that have done the same thing. Two, I think are under investigation now, one I have word will be deleted soon, and another that needs to be investigated. I would like for them to be prosecuted for making willful mis-statements on government documents, to tell the truth...

LMO Christian Media owns it - that's no surprise. They and Hispanic Christian Community Network are two of the biggest offenders in what I call "phantom stations". Here in AZ, HCCN has several phantoms, and even sold one to LMO. To no one's surprise, the station continues to be a phantom. The M.O. for both is to buy a rural station and get it licensed without ever going on air, then to file a series of applications to step the "station" into a large city, where they sell the license at a profit. Sound familiar? KQHO was also owned by HCCN and sold to LMO. It has been moved from Beaumont to Houston.

As a Christian, I find the sleaze of it all especially shameful, as they dare to drag the title of "Christian" into their shady dealings. Gerald Benavides is another such sleaze. All 3 are HQ'd out of the D/FW Metroplex.

KQHO's CP is to cut to DTV on ch 20, and that really is good until 9/1/2015, but if they had actually been operating, they would need to cease operations on ch 56 after 12/31 until they got ch 20 up and running. A correct example of this is K55DB, a PBS translator in Prescott AZ, who has filed a silent STA and will be off the air beginning Saturday night, until they get their digital facility up and running on ch. 43.
post #7308 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

LMO Christian Media owns it - that's no surprise. They and Hispanic Christian Community Network are two of the biggest offenders in what I call "phantom stations". Here in AZ, HCCN has several phantoms, and even sold one to LMO. To no one's surprise, the station continues to be a phantom. The M.O. for both is to buy a rural station and get it licensed without ever going on air, then to file a series of applications to step the "station" into a large city, where they sell the license at a profit. Sound familiar? KQHO was also owned by HCCN and sold to LMO. It has been moved from Beaumont to Houston.

As a Christian, I find the sleaze of it all especially shameful, as they dare to drag the title of "Christian" into their shady dealings. Gerald Benavides is another such sleaze. All 3 are HQ'd out of the D/FW Metroplex.

KQHO's CP is to cut to DTV on ch 20, and that really is good until 9/1/2015, but if they had actually been operating, they would need to cease operations on ch 56 after 12/31 until they got ch 20 up and running. A correct example of this is K55DB, a PBS translator in Prescott AZ, who has filed a silent STA and will be off the air beginning Saturday night, until they get their digital facility up and running on ch. 43.

Sounds very familiar. How do they get away with this with the FCC?

Phantom stations. Now I know what to call them. Irks me to no end...
Thanks for the backstory.
post #7309 of 7384
I like "phantom stations" too. We have lots of those around here. They play all sorts of paperwork games with the FCC but the stations never come on the air.

Chuck
post #7310 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

Sounds very familiar. How do they get away with this with the FCC?

I think that the key is that there are so many LPTV/translator stations out there, the FCC doesn't have even close to the staff necessary to check all of them out, so they concentrate on the full-powers (although not always well either) and rely on complaints from the public or from honest operators themselves to police the low-power stations. Applications for license seem to be routinely granted for low-power stations, especially rural ones, without anyone ever checking if the station is actually operating.

I've seen stations with licenses where I cannot even find any kind of tower at the location specified. I've seen stations go silent for years at a time without ever notifying the FCC and without losing their licenses, while operators honest enough to report a silent station lose their licenses after being silent for 12 months. I've even heard - but I cannot verify the story - of one owner who claimed to be operating from a certain tower, and when informed of it, it was news to the tower owner!

I've wrestled with whether or not I should rat out these owners, especially at license renewal time, but in the end, I decided that the FCC really isn't even concerned. They have bigger fish to fry, like taking spectrum from OTA TV and selling it for broadband use. Then again, that might be the thing that makes the plans of these spectrum peddlers backfire: once the OTA TV band is reduced, there won't be any spectrum available in large cities for LPTV operators anyway, so those licenses the peddlers procured will become worthless in the end.
post #7311 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

I think that the key is that there are so many LPTV/translator stations out there, the FCC doesn't have even close to the staff necessary to check all of them out, so they concentrate on the full-powers (although not always well either) and rely on complaints from the public or from honest operators themselves to police the low-power stations. Applications for license seem to be routinely granted for low-power stations, especially rural ones, without anyone ever checking if the station is actually operating.

I've seen stations with licenses where I cannot even find any kind of tower at the location specified. I've seen stations go silent for years at a time without ever notifying the FCC and without losing their licenses, while operators honest enough to report a silent station lose their licenses after being silent for 12 months. I've even heard - but I cannot verify the story - of one owner wholly claimed to be operating from a certain tower, and when informed of it, it was news to the tower owner!

I've wrestled with whether or not I should rat out these owners, especially at license renewal time, but in the end, I decided that the FCC really isn't even concerned. They have bigger fish to fry, like taking spectrum from OTA TV and selling it for broadband use. Then again, that might be the thing that makes the plans of these spectrum peddlers backfire: once the OTA TV band is reduced, there won't be any spectrum available in large cities for LPTV operators anyway, so those licenses the peddlers procured will become worthless in the end.

I have no qualms whatsoever about ratting them out. I know someone has complained about 3 of the phantoms around here, and I have decided to file a formal complaint about the other two ASAP... Kinda a pet peeve thing.

It's one thing for a LPTV broadcaster who is struggling to get on the air and quite another to get CP then falsely claim to be on the air.
post #7312 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

I have no qualms whatsoever about ratting them out. I know someone has complained about 3 of the phantoms around here, and I have decided to file a formal complaint about the other two ASAP... Kinda a pet peeve thing.

It's one thing for a LPTV broadcaster who is struggling to get on the air and quite another to get CP then falsely claim to be on the air.

I had decided that the FCC just didn't care; I guess we'll see then.
post #7313 of 7384
More VHF increases coming to the northeast.

WNYT-12 in Albany wants to boost from 15 kW to 30 kW.

The big deal, though, is a four-way interference agreement that involves:

WABC-7 New York from 26.9 kW to 34 kW
WXXA-7 Albany from 10 kW to 15 kW
WWNY-7 Watertown from 34 kW to 42 kW
WBNG-7 Binghamton from 20.4 kW to 34 kW

- Trip
post #7314 of 7384
AMENDMENT OF SECTION SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS (LINCOLN, NEBRASKA). Substituted channel 15 for channel 51 at Lincoln, Nebraska for station KFXL-TV. (Dkt No. 11-192 RM-11646 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 01/26/2012 by R&O. (DA No. 12-91).

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...DA-12-91A1.pdf
post #7315 of 7384
I've read that congress is preparing to auction of some parts of the broadcast TV spectrum for other uses, such as wireless internet.

Does anyone here know more about this (or is it being discussed in some other topic)? What spectrum exactly? Are some channels going away (parts of UHF, or VHF-Lo, or VHF-Hi), or is this per channel, per market, depending on the local channel assignments? In some parts of the country, there doesn't appear to be that much available spectrum, to the point that getting new broadcast licenses or power increases is difficult.

I like my broadcast HDTV, and I don't want congress doing anything to remove the broadcasts I receive.

I read this here, but there's not enough technical info:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/bu...ref=technology
post #7316 of 7384
post #7317 of 7384
WGAL translator channel 49 Harrisburg, PA is now broadcasting. I am receiving it very well at 40 miles to the south.
post #7318 of 7384
How will the fill in translators be treated in the auction and repacking? Will they be considered primary under their full service parent's license or will they be considered secondary LDs?
post #7319 of 7384
FYI
link to article about class A LPTV titled "More steps toward tv band clearing"

http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/03/a...band-clearing/

The first paragraph follows

The thinning of the ranks of Class A TV stations continues. We reported recently that the FCC has started to propose the downgrading of a number of Class A television stations to LPTV status, presumably to make room for the almighty broadband to take over TV spectrum. The stations targeted in the first round of that effort had (a) failed to file Children’s TV Reports and (b) failed to respond to FCC’s inquiries about the whereabouts of those reports. (The Commission later fined a number of other stations which had also failed to file kidvid reports; they escaped the dreaded downgrading because they had at least responded to the FCC’s inquiries.)
post #7320 of 7384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rory Boyce View Post

FYI
link to article about class A LPTV titled "More steps toward tv band clearing"

http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/03/a...band-clearing/

The first paragraph follows

The thinning of the ranks of Class A TV stations continues. We reported recently that the FCC has started to propose the downgrading of a number of Class A television stations to LPTV status, presumably to make room for the almighty broadband to take over TV spectrum. The stations targeted in the first round of that effort had (a) failed to file Children's TV Reports and (b) failed to respond to FCC's inquiries about the whereabouts of those reports. (The Commission later fined a number of other stations which had also failed to file kidvid reports; they escaped the dreaded downgrading because they had at least responded to the FCC's inquiries.)

Also don't forget that the FCC has a Sept 2015 shutdown date of analog LPs. Many analog PS either can't or won't switch to digital and will be shut down. So easy way to free up spectrum for them without having to cough up cash.
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