WBIN, which was Channel 50 when the calls were WZMY and WNDS, and which broadcasts on RF 35, now identifies as Channel 18, although the PSID on my TV (I watch OTA) still says 50. Also, reception has been tricky since the digital transition, but lately it's coming in like gangbusters. What gives?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Derry's TV 50...35...18...HIKE!
- Thread starter Schuyler
- Start date
Was "18" supposed to be a cable position on many analog channel lineups? Here in Connecticut, WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 of New Britain uses channel 35 for digital. Never once have they ever said "35" on their air. As for old analog cable, WVIT was channel 4 here for years, never on cable 30 in New Britain or Hartford.
"18" is indeed the WNDS/WZMY/WBIN cable position on Comcast across most of the Boston/Manchester systems, and since that's where most WBIN viewers are seeing it, it makes sense to brand that way.
Why would WVIT brand with "35"? Nobody has ever had to tune to "35" to watch the station, and nobody ever will. It's purely a behind-the-scenes address, like the IP address for this website. And like an underlying IP address, it's highly subject to change. As the FCC gets ready for another repacking of the UHF spectrum, it's highly likely that by 2014 or 2015 WVIT (and hundreds of other stations) may be operating on yet another new RF channel.
Why would WVIT brand with "35"? Nobody has ever had to tune to "35" to watch the station, and nobody ever will. It's purely a behind-the-scenes address, like the IP address for this website. And like an underlying IP address, it's highly subject to change. As the FCC gets ready for another repacking of the UHF spectrum, it's highly likely that by 2014 or 2015 WVIT (and hundreds of other stations) may be operating on yet another new RF channel.
Why bother identifying by an arbitrary cable channel number? My cable system carries WBIN on channel 26. If the average person here remembers "18", they're going to turn to cable channel 18, which is the EWTN Catholic channel. Over-the-air viewers will tune to 18 and see nothing. Doesn't years of identifying themselves as "channel 50" mean anything?
Paul
Paul
Long Island's WLNY has a virtual over-the-air channel number of 55 (although that is not it's digital RF channel position), but is also promoted as "Channel 10" since it's on that position on most New York-area cable systems.
And in San Diego, WNSD is promoted as "7" since most cable systems in that area carry it on cable channel 7.
And in San Diego, WNSD is promoted as "7" since most cable systems in that area carry it on cable channel 7.
I had written: said:
I made a big-time typo!
The call letters, of course, are KNSD!
Myself, I see no reason why certain stations shouldn't be able to change their major channel mapping to match their RF channel. As long as the RF number isn't the same as another station's old analog assignment, I don't see why not. In Phoenix, KASW was on channel 61 in the analog days; digital is on channel 49. The station IDs to PSIP as 61.x, but the station's branding is CW 6, as the dominant cable TV provider, Cox, assigned KASW to channel 6 on their cable system. I think that KASW should be able to ID as channel 49.x if they wish; there has never been a full-power channel 49 here, and no station will be able to identify through PSIP as channel 49, since that would require broadcasting on the frequencies formerly occupied by channel 61, which cannot happen.
But, if the FCC wants to have a rule that stations are supposed to identify through PSIP by their former analog channel, then they need to enforce it uniformly. Instead, PSIP is optional for non-Class A LPTV stations, and in some cases, the FCC has allowed full power stations to identify by their RF channel on PSIP. (Example: KAIL Fresno - ch. 53 analog, ch. 7 digital, identifies as channel 7.x, not 53.x.)
But, if the FCC wants to have a rule that stations are supposed to identify through PSIP by their former analog channel, then they need to enforce it uniformly. Instead, PSIP is optional for non-Class A LPTV stations, and in some cases, the FCC has allowed full power stations to identify by their RF channel on PSIP. (Example: KAIL Fresno - ch. 53 analog, ch. 7 digital, identifies as channel 7.x, not 53.x.)
dhett said:
Firstly, because that's the way the ATSC wrote the standard & the FCC didn't want to have to reinvent it
I think the ATSC probably figured no existing station would *want* to ID by its RF channel. It would take a fair bit of text to enumerate the situations where IDing by RF channel would be OK & they didn't feel it would be worth the effort for something they figured nobody would do.
"No harm, no foul", I suppose.
w9wi said:
Which is the premise for my first opinion. Yeah, I know that's how ATSC wrote the standard, but the FCC didn't implement the entire standard, so I just figure, since the FCC seems to be willing to make exceptions, then why not allow stations to remap to their RF channel if they wish, as long as the channel isn't being used as a virtual channel by another station.
But that's just my opinion - who am I to tell the FCC what to do?
I prefer sensible regulations consistently enforced over unreasonable regulations haphazardly enforced. I know - I'm crazy that way.
I suspect that at least philosophically, nobody at the Commission would have any major objections to dhett's sensible proposal. But I do see three obstacles, one logistical, one regulatory and one philosophical.
Logistical: The FCC is already underfunded and understaffed, especially in the "un-sexy" Media Bureau. Allowing stations to use their RF channels as their major channel numbers, in the absence of conflict, requires a definition of what constitutes "conflict." Writing that regulation takes time and costs money, and enforcing it and resolving disputes takes more time and costs more money. Who's paying? (And what does constitute conflict?)
Regulatory: One of the big reasons broadcasters wanted to keep their analog channel numbers as their ATSC major channel numbers was cable must-carry. Cable systems are still required to carry must-carry stations on or below their major channel number, and to honor historical cable carriage positions. Dish and Direct use OTA major channel numbers almost exclusively. What happens in Boston when WMFP decides it wants to begin using "18.x" instead of "62.x" (a "no-conflict" situation) and then goes to Comcast, Dish and Direct and demands carriage on 18? Again, it's a situation that probably could be resolved - but who's paying for the staff to do that?
Philosophical: The UHF band is about to be repacked in the next few years. If I'm KASW, do I want to pour promotional energy and money into pushing "49.x" if I might be sent down to 25 or 36 or whatever come 2014? And who resolves the conflicts that might result from that round of repacking? Would stations be allowed to take their pick of either their old analog channel, their first-round ATSC channel or their repacked ATSC channel as a major channel number? Yet again - it could certainly be resolved, but by whom, and at what cost?
Logistical: The FCC is already underfunded and understaffed, especially in the "un-sexy" Media Bureau. Allowing stations to use their RF channels as their major channel numbers, in the absence of conflict, requires a definition of what constitutes "conflict." Writing that regulation takes time and costs money, and enforcing it and resolving disputes takes more time and costs more money. Who's paying? (And what does constitute conflict?)
Regulatory: One of the big reasons broadcasters wanted to keep their analog channel numbers as their ATSC major channel numbers was cable must-carry. Cable systems are still required to carry must-carry stations on or below their major channel number, and to honor historical cable carriage positions. Dish and Direct use OTA major channel numbers almost exclusively. What happens in Boston when WMFP decides it wants to begin using "18.x" instead of "62.x" (a "no-conflict" situation) and then goes to Comcast, Dish and Direct and demands carriage on 18? Again, it's a situation that probably could be resolved - but who's paying for the staff to do that?
Philosophical: The UHF band is about to be repacked in the next few years. If I'm KASW, do I want to pour promotional energy and money into pushing "49.x" if I might be sent down to 25 or 36 or whatever come 2014? And who resolves the conflicts that might result from that round of repacking? Would stations be allowed to take their pick of either their old analog channel, their first-round ATSC channel or their repacked ATSC channel as a major channel number? Yet again - it could certainly be resolved, but by whom, and at what cost?
Channel Mapping: Virtual vs. RF
Another option is to permit flexibility at the receiver end: Provide a setting that allows the viewer to decide whether the display provides the prescribed virtual, physical RF or a combination of the two.
For example, in the case of WBZ:4 RF-30, WCVB:5 RF-20 and WHDH:7 RF-42:
or, more correctly (though, even I see this as a useless technicality, since subchannel assignment only involves software/programming, not a subcarrier-like position on the physical digital signal——right Doug, Scott?),
In either of the combo modes, I see no problem in using the proper subchannel.
Of course, the factory set default mode should remain as virtual, for the clueless 99.999% of the viewers who couldn’t care less about the RF, but at least the option is there for the .001% that does! 8)
Another option is to permit flexibility at the receiver end: Provide a setting that allows the viewer to decide whether the display provides the prescribed virtual, physical RF or a combination of the two.
For example, in the case of WBZ:4 RF-30, WCVB:5 RF-20 and WHDH:7 RF-42:
DTV Channel Mapping said:
or, more correctly (though, even I see this as a useless technicality, since subchannel assignment only involves software/programming, not a subcarrier-like position on the physical digital signal——right Doug, Scott?),
DTV Channel Mapping (cont.) said:
In either of the combo modes, I see no problem in using the proper subchannel.
Of course, the factory set default mode should remain as virtual, for the clueless 99.999% of the viewers who couldn’t care less about the RF, but at least the option is there for the .001% that does! 8)
w9wi said:
WNEU Merrimack NH uses their RF channel 34 instead of their old analog channel 60.
- Status