AVS Forum banner

10261 - 10280 of 18882 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,860 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10230#post_24472538


Hi Larry,


Do you have a link to 38 - 51 going away.


/quote]


No... it's just the information that I remember from reading various articles.


Larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,326 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Tribolet  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10230#post_24473472


I presume this means the two sharing stations are sharing a transmitter?


Chuck

Yes.


It not like KUVS (VC 19, RF 18) and KTFK (VC 64 , RF 26). Those two channels have a strange arrangement. 19.1 is HD on RF 18. 19.2 is the same program as 19.1 except it is SD on RF 26. 64.1 is on RF 26. 64.2 is the same program as 64.1 except it is SD on RF 18. Confused yet?



It is not like KSBW where NBC is 8.1 and ABC is 8.2 but both stations identify as KSBW.


It would be like KOVR 13.1 on RF 25 and KMAX 31.1 moving from RF 21 to RF 25 but identifying as different stations. The average TV viewer would not know that KOVR and KMAX were on the same digital data stream.



It's my personal opinion that no profitable station will participate in the auction or be inclined to channel share. Only unprofitable stations like KCSM (and KMTP?) will participate in the auction.


I have to wonder about the reports of groups trying to buy up stations in preparation for the auction. Anyone doing this would need to make money in the auction. Why would a station sell to some group for less than they could get for it themselves in the auction?


I also wonder how successful this auction can be? The major markets are where there (supposedly) is a spectrum shortage. But those are same places crammed with mostly profitable stations. Small markets may have enough space to repack the UHF TV spectrum but there is no spectrum shortage in those places. Who's going to bid on TV spectrum in place where it is unneeded?


Channel Sharing? Is a one time lump sum payment going to outweigh the long term profits that can be made from two stations?


All this is the result of the National Broadband Plan (NBP) that came out a few years ago. The NBP says it's goal is to provide high speed internet to rural America. I live in rural America and absolutely zero has come out of the NBP for high speed internet. My "high speed" internet is yesterday's metropolitan high speed internet and what we do have isn't the result of the government. It's the result of a one man entrepreneur who lives a couple miles from me. I have yet to hear one word as to how the NBP or the TV auction is going to increase my internet speed.


To me this whole thing sounds like another government program that is either poorly thought out or has an agenda other than the one used to originally sell the program.


Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,986 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kenney  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10230#post_24473736


We mentioned the sharing of a TV channel by two stations... in today's edition of "TV Technology" there was an article about the two stations in LA who are already doing it:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/la-stations-decode-channel-sharing-question/269112

One of the stations is commercial, the other is PBS.


Larry

SF
Hi,

 

I am not sure that this is not just pure BS and the author knows nothing about the subject or my understanding is flawed.

 
Quote:
“Can the current PSIP code accommodate two primary channels, as opposed to just one primary channel and multiple secondary channels?” Ericksen asked. The KLCS-KJLA combination may try to fit both their 41.1-x and 49.1-x primary and subchannels into two virtual channels fed through a single program stream. - See more at: http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/la-stations-decode-channel-sharing-question/269112#sthash.20Xf5UB9.dpuf
I just looked at TSReader output and I see nothing about a "primary channel" at all.

 

 

SHF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24473941


My "high speed" internet is yesterday's metropolitan high speed internet and what we do have isn't the result of the government. It's the result of a one man entrepreneur who lives a couple miles from me. I have yet to hear one word as to how the NBP or the TV auction is going to increase my internet speed.


Chuck
 

Same in Morgan Hill/San Martin/Gilroy/Hollister.  Garlic.com (South Valley Internet) has been our niche internet provider for a long, back into the days of dial-up, when they figured out that San Martin was toll-free from Morgan Hill and Gilroy and put some dial-up modems in San Martin.  Today, we do have Charter in my neighborhood, and that's faster than garlic, so I get my wire (internet only) from Charter and my e-mail and web site from garlic.


Ditto for the hills east of Watsonville, different provider, same entrepreneurial spirit.

 

Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,326 Posts
I don't know the details of PSIP so I ask this question:


Is there some reason why you can't use XX.1 and YY.1 on different sub channels?


Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,986 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24474203


I don't know the details of PSIP so I ask this question:


Is there some reason why you can use XX.1 and YY.1 on different sub channels?s


Chuck
Hi,

 

The article Larry linked wondered about many items and how ATSC tuners have been programmed.

 

Some may have bad code like the problem with COZY Postage Stamp 16:9 display.

 

I am sure that there will be some ATSC tuners that may have problems, BUT.

 

If it's in the ATSC spec then a transmitter can use it.

 

I would expect that most ATSC tuners will have no problem at all.

 

 
Quote:
Is there some reason why you can use XX.1 and YY.1 on different sub channels?
 

Yes AFAIK (And I have never read the Spec completely) there is nothing preventing this.

 

The Virtual Channel scheme has many bad aspects, but it may be the way forward for the big crunch.

 

They are testing to see what problems pop up, some will but perhaps not those expected.

 

ATSC was adopted 2003, years before a usable tuner had been built.

 



This document appears to not cover the Virtual Channel part, I need to look at more documents.
Quote:
A Recommended Practice for the Digital Television Standard is also available. A/54A: Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard 4 December 2003,
 

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_54a_with_corr_1.pdf

 

SHF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,525 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24474344


ATSC was adopted 2003, years before a usable tuner had been built.
This document appears to not cover the Virtual Channel part, I need to look at more documents.

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_54a_with_corr_1.pdf


SHF

ATSC was adopted in 1996. I bought my first HD tuner in 2003, the Samsung SIR-T165.


The PSIP specification is here:

http://www.atsc.org/cms/index.php/standards/standards/53-atsc-a65-standard


Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,525 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kenney  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10230#post_24471674



Some are more sensitive than others and receive stations perfectly that others show "No Signal" for.


Larry

SF

I've measured the sensitivity difference between a reference design and my 2006 vintage Toshiba TV to be 5 dB (the Toshiba is 5 dB worse). That's a lot.


Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,986 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24474486

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24474344


ATSC was adopted 2003, years before a usable tuner had been built.


This document appears to not cover the Virtual Channel part, I need to look at more documents.

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_54a_with_corr_1.pdf


SHF

ATSC was adopted in 1996. I bought my first HD tuner in 2003, the Samsung SIR-T165.


The PSIP specification is here:

http://www.atsc.org/cms/index.php/standards/standards/53-atsc-a65-standard


Ron
Hi,

 

I am neck deep into:

 

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_65-2009.pdf

 

I have spotted how it might be thought that there is a primary channel, a number that I see in HDHR scans output.

 

"TSID" Transport Stream ID.

 

This is a unique number assigned to stations by the FCC.  AFAIK

 

It's use by any tuner is unknown, HDHR appears to be one that allows requests to include it but I do not see any real useful task as other parameters do just as good.

 
Quote:
major_channel_number — A 10-bit number that represents the “major” channel number associated with the virtual channel being defined in this iteration of the “for” loop. Each virtual channel shall be associated with a major and a minor channel number. The major channel number, along with the minor channel number, act as the user’s reference number for the virtual channel. The major_channel_number shall be between 1 and 99. The value of major_channel_number shall be set such that in no case is a major_channel_number/ minor_channel_number pair duplicated within the TVCT. For major_channel_number assignments in the U.S., refer to Annex B.
From reading how the ATSC spec is written I get the very strong sense that

 
Quote:

 

Is there some reason why you can use XX.1 and YY.1 on different sub channels?s
 

Yes! The spec writers have gone to great length to not limit what can be done. GREAT LENGTH!!!

 

The "TSID" being unique is not on a transmitter basis as KGO RF 7 and RF 35 both contain the same TSID.

 
Quote:

SCANNING: 599000000 (us-bcast:35)

LOCK: 8vsb (ss=78 snq=68 seq=100)

TSID: 0x017D

PROGRAM 3: 7.1 KGO-HD

PROGRAM 4: 7.2 LIVWELL

PROGRAM 5: 7.3 LWSD

 

SCANNING: 177000000 (us-bcast:7)

LOCK: 8vsb (ss=100 snq=100 seq=100)

TSID: 0x017D

PROGRAM 3: 7.1 KGO-HD

PROGRAM 4: 7.2 LIVWELL

PROGRAM 5: 7.3 LWSD
 

I do not think TSID is a deal breaker as the FCC can redefine it's use.

 

Some other ATSC programmers than HDHR may have used TSID, please report them.

 

SHF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,986 Posts

Hi Chuck,

 
Quote:

A licensee may include in the transmitted multiplex programming originating from a different licensee. In this case, the major/minor channel numbers of the original broadcast may be used to label those services, as long as the major/minor channel number combinations are coordinated in the local Service Area to avoid conflicts in the channel numbers. The business coordination process for this requirement is beyond the scope of this document.
This followed the rules of how the major channel for a licensee is determined.

 

So this is as clear as any statement that may be in the document addressing your question.

 

Yes I quickly scanned it and may have missed something.

 

http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_65-2009.pdf

 

The amount of code needed to fully follow the ATSC spec and all it's options is best given as the last example in this webpage:

 

This is a fabulous chart:

 

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/

 

plus, there's a punchline at the very bottom.

 

SHF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,860 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24474344


ATSC was adopted 2003, years before a usable tuner had been built.

Had to be before 2003. 1996 sounds more like it, like Ron said. KGO HD channel 24 signed on the air in November, 1998, and they certainly were following ATSC protocol. We bought our first HD TV in 2000 and it's still working great with today's signals. Tuner isn't very sensitive, but other than that it produces a beautiful picture.


Larry

SF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,860 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,986 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kenney  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24475356

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFischer1  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24474344


ATSC was adopted 2003, years before a usable tuner had been built.

Had to be before 2003. 1996 sounds more like it, like Ron said. KGO HD channel 24 signed on the air in November, 1998, and they certainly were following ATSC protocol. We bought our first HD TV in 2000 and it's still working great with today's signals. Tuner isn't very sensitive, but other than that it produces a beautiful picture.


Larry

SF
Hi,

 

What I am saying it was years later that the first viable ATSC tuner was demonstrated in the famous New York City apartment.

 

"Bob Miller witnesses excellent ATSC reception at Mark Schu..." (2004)

 

I learned so much about ATSC from his posts and Zero (0) from the criminal thugs that drove him from AVS and have stalked him every where he has made any posts.

 

My joining AVS was delayed well over a year by his treatment.

 

Searching the web I find the criminality continues as his very informative post(s) have been damaged.

 

Some day the laws of the United States, States and Cities will apply to the Internet.

 

SHF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,986 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calaveras  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24473941

...

To me this whole thing sounds like another government program that is either poorly thought out or has an agenda other than the one used to originally sell the program.


Chuck
Hi,

 

Not poorly thought out, just thought about by people that see $$$$$$.

 

The Wireless companies want to expand, and there are more and more smart phones are being sold so there is more bandwidth needed and more money to be made. It would take too long to type all the "$" letters.

 

Congress wants money to get themselves re-elected, where will the money come from. Ever hear of "K" street.

 

Laws are mainly written to allow companies to make more money.

 

That started day -x00? before the USA was created. Of business men for business men by business men.

 

Oh, and a small amount for the US Treasury.

 

SHF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kenney  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10200#post_24462413


KFTY, transmitting on channel 2,

I see no sign of it here in San Francisco on my UHF antenna pointed north. I don't have anything for low VHF.

Larry

I see the signal here in Hayward. KFTY-2 ...(75 miles @ 2 edge)..... Initial testing showed ....

Meh..
... 3 to 5% .... No Lock .... Also checked KCSO-3 ... a complete zero.

More stable signal compared to KEMO.... do-able only with extreme measures.... tower, stacking, etc.

No ground level signal and/or reception on battery tv connected to low VHF dipole.


I will check again with a 7777 amp connected, also with a "Vee" style antenna.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 888CALLFCC  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24476201



I see the signal here in Hayward. KFTY-2 ...(75 miles @ 2 edge)..... Initial testing showed ....

Meh..
... 3 to 5% .... No Lock .... Also checked KCSO-3 ... a complete zero.

More stable signal compared to KEMO.... do-able only with extreme measures.... tower, stacking, etc.

No ground level signal and/or reception on battery tv connected to low VHF dipole.


I will check again with a 7777 amp connected, also with a "Vee" style antenna.
Conditions are good tonight, picking up KDTV 14 (rf 51) from SF (technically Fremont, I believe) right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,275 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by 888CALLFCC  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10200_100#post_24476201


I see the signal here in Hayward. KFTY-2 ...(75 miles @ 2 edge)..... Initial testing showed ....

Meh..
... 3 to 5% .... No Lock .... Also checked KCSO-3 ... a complete zero.

More stable signal compared to KEMO.... do-able only with extreme measures.... tower, stacking, etc.

No ground level signal and/or reception on battery tv connected to low VHF dipole.


I will check again with a 7777 amp connected, also with a "Vee" style antenna.

You shouldn't expect much from low-VHF digital over any kind of distance without extreme measures.


- Trip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,326 Posts
The noise issues on low VHF make it difficult to receive anything except strong signals. This is one of the reasons I've not been very enthusiastic about the 6M ham band. It seems like every noise peaks around 50 MHz. Things get a little better by the time you get to channel 6.


But I received a report from my friend in Placerville who has a combo antenna up and he's getting KFTY with an SNR of 28 dB at about 104 miles and LOS.


Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA  /t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/10260#post_24476482



You shouldn't expect much from low-VHF digital over any kind of distance without extreme measures.


- Trip
I thought that in the analog days, VHF low-band was where the stations really wanted to be.  What changed?

 

Chuck
 
10261 - 10280 of 18882 Posts
Top