Channel 3.1 Dallas?

[arnoldevns]

In theory, Nielsen ratings go down to the hundredths of a point. In reality, the sample size in a market like DFW is so small anything would be rated by the tenths of a point. That also makes it far less likely that some of these stations ever show up in the ratings. I think in most cases you would have to go with anecdotal evidence of an audience (phone calls, letters and e-mails) in order to try and offer up any meaningful measurement.

 

[TexasTom]

In theory, Nielsen ratings go down to the hundredths of a point. In reality, the sample size in a market like DFW is so small anything would be rated by the tenths of a point. That also makes it far less likely that some of these stations ever show up in the ratings. I think in most cases you would have to go with anecdotal evidence of an audience (phone calls, letters and e-mails) in order to try and offer up any meaningful measurement.

Nielsen ratings would be irrelevant to these stations, regardless -- none of them could afford to pay for the ratings, and thus would be prohibited from using those ratings for sales purposes even if they did have measurable ratings.

As you comment, anecdotal evidence is likely to be of more relevance to these stations that would measurable ratings. But still...someone has to be watching in order to generate those calls, letters, and e-mails -- and, most especially, to respond to those per inquiry ads.

 

[JHBrandt]

As everyone who's followed my posting history on R-I, I rarely discuss anything beyond technical matters or broadcast history. But, Mr. Brandt, your post has provided an opening for an ``elephant in the room'' topic that I've been pondering:

At any given moment, aside from we few who are interested in reception and stop by just to see what's happening, how many viewers are actually watching those OTA low power stations (that haven't gotten cable coverage), such as KHPK?

...

We've got a large number of OTA choices here in D/FW...but purely out of curiosity is anyone (excluding JHBrandt, eskipper411, Megapsycle and yours truly) watching?

LOL! Yes, KHPK's digital offerings aren't exactly compelling TV - and even if they were, they're one of the most challenging LP stations in the D/FW area to receive. Who wants to put up a monster VHF-Lo antenna? The four of us watch, but just long enough to see if they've replaced Spamavision with anything interesting. I'm not holding my breath.

I've been wondering about the same question. There are few LP broadcasts in D/FW worth watching for more than 30 seconds:

• AMGTV on 31.4
• MTV Tres on 50.1
• TeleRitmo on 31.3
• Mexicanal on 34.2
• Azteca America on 50.3 (and 44 analog)
• And of course some offerings on 34.1 and 34.3

The Hispanic community seems to be disproportionately represented here, but in fact they've pretty consistently gotten about a third of the pie. It's just that more Hispanic slices and fewer Anglo slices are on LPTV.

More LPTV may be in the pipeline. KSEX and KODF have applied to return as digital channels 20 and 27 (virtual channel 36?), respectively. And KLEG 44 has applied to switch to digital. KNAV has also expressed interest in digital, although their application for channel 29 won't be granted (KTXA is getting that).

I keep hoping that the Spanish Godcasters will move to non-commercial KVFW and/or KPFW and make more room for something more interesting like TheCoolTV or RTN to return....

 

[JHBrandt]

KHPK has filed an application to, um, rotate their transmitting antenna. Currently it's canted toward Dallas, which cuts out much of Fort Worth. The proposed pattern would be more like other LP stations. It won't make much difference to me, but it would let 3.1 and 3.2 cover both cities. The "losers" would be the few folks who live in the rural area south of Dallas.

Yesterday KHPK filed an amendment to the above application, specifying a different antenna. (Unfortunately they fat-fingered the latitude by 3 degrees, which moves their transmitter up to Nowhere, OK. Presumably someone will catch the error and KHPK will refile.)

It's hard to be certain until they correct their application, but it appears the new antenna will cover less area (and fewer viewers) than the current one. Signal strength at my home would drop about 3 dB, although I should still receive their signal (in case they ever put on anything worth watching!) Unclear why they are doing this. According to the application the antenna height will remain the same, and their transmitter power will actually have to increase to maintain their 300 watt ERP, so there doesn't seem to be any upside to this change. ???

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

According to the [amended KHPK] application the antenna height will remain the same, and their transmitter power will actually have to increase to maintain their 300 watt ERP, so there doesn't seem to be any upside to this change. ???

And this topic gives me a wedge to fork off onto this interesting application granted by the FCC for another channel 3 in the Bay Area:

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A WAIVER OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO INCREASE THE POWER OF K03HY-D FROM 300 WATTS TO 1200 WATTS. (Emphasis added).

[...]

INCREASING THE POWER BY 6 DB WILL ALLOW THE STATION TO BE VIABLE. MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION HAS WAIVED ITS RULES CONCERNING POWER LIMITS WHEN IT HAS SERVED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. FOR EXAMPLE, WPVI IN PHILADELPHIA WAS GRANTED PERMISSION TO QUADRUPLE POWER ON CHANNEL 6. ALSO, THE IS PRECEDENCE TO INCREASE POWER OF LPTVS ABOVE THEIR MAXIMUM LIMIT TO REACH ETHNIC GROUPS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE SERVED.

INCREASING POWER TO 1200 WATTS WILL ALSO ALLOW THE STATION TO OVERCOME BACKGROUND NOISE THAT IS PREVELANT ON LOW VHF CHANNELS. ALSO, IT WILL HELP OVERCOME THE ISSUES WITH IN HOME ANTENNAS THAT ARE PRIMARILY CONSTRUCTED TO RECEIVE UHF SIGNALS.

See this URL for the details:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/w...t=25&appn=101334493&formid=346&fac_num=168824

 

[tripinva]

UHF antennas are crap at receiving low-VHF unless you're sitting on top of the transmitter, I don't care what the power level is. It might help with the roof antennas that are already VHF-capable, but I wouldn't see it doing much else.

- Trip

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

UHF antennas are crap at receiving low-VHF unless you're sitting on top of the transmitter, I don't care what the power level is. It might help with the roof antennas that are already VHF-capable, but I wouldn't see it doing much else.

The application from the Petaluma, CA station also cites ``PRECEDENCE TO INCREASE POWER OF LPTVS ABOVE THEIR MAXIMUM LIMIT TO REACH ETHNIC GROUPS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE SERVED.''

Given that dubious claim of a 6 dB increase benefiting reception of a low-V on a UHF antenna, is there REALLY precedent for low-power stations being granted power in excess of maximum limits to ``...reach ethnic groups...''?

 

[stationi]

is there REALLY precedent for low-power stations being granted power in excess of maximum limits to ``...reach ethnic groups...''?

WWME-CA was an ethnic UHF LPTV station in Chicago and was approved to operate with up to 363 kW. Shortly there after the station completely dumped all the ethnic program and began broadcasting classic television shows while maintaining the same 383 kW ERP.

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=WWME

 

[fredcantu]

Sadly that has happened with other programs aimed at improving diversity in broadcast ownership. Nothing in the rules says the minorities can't make an instant return on their investment by selling out to the majority.

 

[JHBrandt]

Yesterday KHPK filed an amendment to the above application, specifying a different antenna. (Unfortunately they fat-fingered the latitude by 3 degrees, which moves their transmitter up to Nowhere, OK. Presumably someone will catch the error and KHPK will refile.)

It's hard to be certain until they correct their application, but it appears the new antenna will cover less area (and fewer viewers) than the current one. Signal strength at my home would drop about 3 dB, although I should still receive their signal (in case they ever put on anything worth watching!) Unclear why they are doing this. According to the application the antenna height will remain the same, and their transmitter power will actually have to increase to maintain their 300 watt ERP, so there doesn't seem to be any upside to this change. ???

KHPK-LD fixed the latitude on their application and the FCC has granted their construction permit. According to the coverage maps, the loss in coverage will be significant, although they will pick up a few households in eastern Ft. Worth. My home won't be in their new contour at all, although tvfool.com hasn't been updated with the new application, and so can't calculate its impact on me yet.

This still baffles me. Why not just rotate their existing antenna, as their previous application had specified?

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

KHPK-LD fixed the latitude on their application and the FCC has granted their construction permit. According to the coverage maps, the loss in coverage will be significant, although they will pick up a few households in eastern Ft. Worth. My home won't be in their new contour at all, although tvfool.com hasn't been updated with the new application, and so can't calculate its impact on me yet.

I have to wonder just how accurate the service contour map is on the FCC database. The transmitter output power is slightly higher for that new CP (BMPDVL‑20091203AHE) with the new antenna with less gain. Looking at the polar plot, there will be less signal to the south and therefore more to the north.

 

[JHBrandt]

I have to wonder just how accurate the service contour map is on the FCC database. The transmitter output power is slightly higher for that new CP (BMPDVL‑20091203AHE) with the new antenna with less gain. Looking at the polar plot, there will be less signal to the south and therefore more to the north.

That's a good point. Their current antenna has maxima at 40 and 320 degrees but has a 41 degree rotation, so its strongest signals are 1 degree bearing (due north) and 81 degrees (almost due east). The new antenna has its maximum at 0 degrees with no rotation, so its strongest signal is due north. Since the ERP and antenna height is the same, they should go the same distance northward, and looking at the contour maps, that indeed seems to be the case. But the new antenna has noticeably less signal in most other directions (except northwest).

At first that sounds like a higher-gain antenna, which should reduce the transmitter power needed to get 300 watts ERP. But I also suspect the new antenna has less vertical directivity, so more signal gets beamed downward (for better reception near the tower) - but also skyward (wasted), so in fact its gain is lower. That'd explain why they need more transmitter power to maintain the same ERP.

In fact that may answer my original question as to why they're doing this. Back on page 6 of this thread dhett reported:

Just completed a road trip that took me through the Metroplex on I-20. Tried to pick up the DFW-area digitals from around the I-20/US-67 junction. Everything came in great except KHPK. Detoured down into Duncanville to gas up and eat (same thing?) and tried KHPK again. Nothing better than 25% signal, not enough to get a picture or a real transport stream reading.

So at present, reception with rabbit ears, even near the transmitter, isn't feasible. If the new antenna helps overcome that, that may gain KHPK more viewers than the reduction in coverage area loses. No one within 15 miles of Cedar Hill is going to have an outdoor antenna.

I noticed KSFW/2's license provides for something similar. Their ERP is only 200 watts, but the antenna has a "beam tilt" which increases the effective ERP to 500 watts. (Clever way of getting around the FCC's power limits, BTW.)

 

[JHBrandt]

Does anyone at the LPTV stations read these posts?

KHPK's channel 3.2, Gems TV, has been messed up for several days now. It has what looks like a satellite TV menu listing several potential channels. Gems TV is highlighted, but the video is relegated to a tiny window rather than full-screen.

I guess you could still watch it if you really wanted to (and have a big enough screen!)

 

[eskipper411]

Does anyone at the LPTV stations read these posts?

KHPK's channel 3.2, Gems TV, has been messed up for several days now. It has what looks like a satellite TV menu listing several potential channels. Gems TV is highlighted, but the video is relegated to a tiny window rather than full-screen.

I guess you could still watch it if you really wanted to (and have a big enough screen!)

With, KHPK being 300 watts, satellite TV menu on 3.2, and screwy. That makes it the epic fail TV station in DFW.

 

[JHBrandt]

And now 3.2 is just color bars!

 

[JHBrandt]

I have to wonder just how accurate the service contour map is on the FCC database. The transmitter output power is slightly higher for that new CP (BMPDVL‑20091203AHE) with the new antenna with less gain. Looking at the polar plot, there will be less signal to the south and therefore more to the north.

That's a good point. Their current antenna has maxima at 40 and 320 degrees but has a 41 degree rotation, so its strongest signals are 1 degree bearing (due north) and 81 degrees (almost due east). The new antenna has its maximum at 0 degrees with no rotation, so its strongest signal is due north. Since the ERP and antenna height is the same, they should go the same distance northward, and looking at the contour maps, that indeed seems to be the case. But the new antenna has noticeably less signal in most other directions (except northwest).

At first that sounds like a higher-gain antenna, which should reduce the transmitter power needed to get 300 watts ERP. But I also suspect the new antenna has less vertical directivity, so more signal gets beamed downward (for better reception near the tower) - but also skyward (wasted), so in fact its gain is lower. That'd explain why they need more transmitter power to maintain the same ERP.

In fact that may answer my original question as to why they're doing this. Back on page 6 of this thread dhett reported:

Just completed a road trip that took me through the Metroplex on I-20. Tried to pick up the DFW-area digitals from around the I-20/US-67 junction. Everything came in great except KHPK. Detoured down into Duncanville to gas up and eat (same thing?) and tried KHPK again. Nothing better than 25% signal, not enough to get a picture or a real transport stream reading.

So at present, reception with rabbit ears, even near the transmitter, isn't feasible. If the new antenna helps overcome that, that may gain KHPK more viewers than the reduction in coverage area loses. No one within 15 miles of Cedar Hill is going to have an outdoor antenna.

I noticed KSFW/2's license provides for something similar. Their ERP is only 200 watts, but the antenna has a "beam tilt" which increases the effective ERP to 500 watts. (Clever way of getting around the FCC's power limits, BTW.)

According to the FCC TV query, KHPK's license now covers their new antenna, which probably means they've been using it for some time now.

I still get the station, even though I've aimed my antenna somewhat north of Cedar Hill (to reduce interference from KEOM-FM). So apparently the change didn't impair my reception much.

I'm wondering if anyone is getting KHPK now when they weren't before, or vice versa. I'm interested in seeing if their antenna change has helped or hurt more. (If it helped, then maybe they'll attract more interesting programming than infomercials.)

 

[julesism]

I can try tonight when I get home. I'm in an apartment in 75006. I use Terk HDTV's... one is amplified (south bedroom), the other is not (north living room). Both antennas are elevated and I am on the second floor facing north/south. Bedroom amplified is in south closet on top shelf. Living room is on top of IKEA Billy bookcase. I have never been able to get Low-VHF 3 on either setup. Any suggestions on what length and at what angle to adjust the rabbit ears?

 

[JHBrandt]

I can try tonight when I get home. I'm in an apartment in 75006. I use Terk HDTV's... one is amplified (south bedroom), the other is not (north living room). Both antennas are elevated and I am on the second floor facing north/south. Bedroom amplified is in south closet on top shelf. Living room is on top of IKEA Billy bookcase. I have never been able to get Low-VHF 3 on either setup. Any suggestions on what length and at what angle to adjust the rabbit ears?

As I recall the Terk doesn't have a tuning switch. In this case I use this guy's recommendations (scroll down to the bottom of the page): http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/RabbitEars.html

In brief, he says for channel 3, flatten out your rabbit ears and stretch them to a total length of 99 inches (8 feet 3 inches). If that's not possible, make them as long as you can, then crumple a ball of aluminum foil onto the end of each ear. The idea is to compromise between making them resonant at 63 MHz (the center frequency of channel 3), which would be 93 inches or so, and getting a good impedance match between the rabbit ears and the coax. He's done the modeling and 99 inches worked out best for channel 3.

If the antenna had a tuning switch, I'd try the resonant length (93 inches), then try to find the switch position that worked best.

 

[julesism]

I gave it a good go. I can get a very low signal but it fluctuates and never locks. Interesting is I also get a low signal on RF12 which I'm assuming is KXII, but same results. TV in living room does not have a signal meter (grrr) but would get "stuck" on RF3 and RF12 when scanning but nothing found\added. I've put everything back the way it was. I get everything from Cedar Hill\Dallas except RF3.

 

[arnoldevns]

I have a large antenna on my roof in Plano that allows me to get good reception of either VHF or UHF stations. It is pointed right at Cedar Hill. Until a few months ago, I could never get anything of 3.1 or 3.2. Then, all of the sudden, I was getting something. Sometimes I get the signal in totally watchable form. Other times, it's a chopped up mess with little to no audio. Bottom line: the changes to their pattern have helped.