-
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
Expect a tidal wave of LP's to come rushing in
- Thread starter eskipper411
- Start date
I doubt KQFW will get it. I posted about their application over on this other thread:
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=159531.msg1440001#msg1440001
Besides the over-30-miles issue with the displacement app, I'm not sure an out-of-core channel is their only option. For instance, they could do a channel swap with K31GL or KJJM, much as KPFW is doing with KTXA.
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=159531.msg1440001#msg1440001
Besides the over-30-miles issue with the displacement app, I'm not sure an out-of-core channel is their only option. For instance, they could do a channel swap with K31GL or KJJM, much as KPFW is doing with KTXA.
Just noticed that KNAV has applied to go digital on 22 at 2.5kw.
The service countour maps shows it would serve most of the DFW area fairly well.
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=LD1371118.html
K25FW has applied to modify their digital construction permit for channel 25. It too would have good service over most of DFW.
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=LD1364739.html
This is in addition to the previously mentioned KLEG channel 44 digital conversion.
The service countour maps shows it would serve most of the DFW area fairly well.
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=LD1371118.html
K25FW has applied to modify their digital construction permit for channel 25. It too would have good service over most of DFW.
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=LD1364739.html
This is in addition to the previously mentioned KLEG channel 44 digital conversion.
On Monday, i'll check out what KQFW is broadcasting. Since I am very surprised to pick up KHPK 3.
Given the bad experience people have had with VHF DTV, I am baffled as to why they would continue to go after RF 12.
Or KQFW in that manner.tested said:
tested said:
Yes: even at 2.5 kW they'd probably be better off forgetting about 12 and sticking with 22. (There may be an interference issue with KETK which keeps them from going over 2.5 kW on channel 22.) DXers of KXII/12 would be better off as well.
The FCC's coverage map for channel 12 is broken, but someone here posted a copy of it recently, and as I recall it was a really odd shape with two lobes, one east of its proposed transmitter and one west. The channel 22 map looks like it covers more of the metroplex.
Maybe, if they choose 7 but KQFW's action might move up or down the spectrum.JHBrandt said:
In my history of TV transmitter experience, I say this has got to be the stupides move ever. 52+ is being used by all the wireless people. And what happens next? KQFW comes in the picture on 56. Go on to RF 16 or something.JHBrandt said:
TexasTom said:
I've always wondered why we had to lose three channels for this. I understand guard bands, but couldn't the police radios have used frequencies 3 MHz lower, so that the lower half of 15 and the upper half of 16 would be the guard bands and 17 would be available? Oh, well, it's too late to fix it now.
Aren't they behind a year and 6 days..... :JHBrandt said:
JHBrandt said:
All these applications have totally confused the FCC. They sent KNAV a letter asking what KNAV wants to do:
http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=19973
From KNAV's reply, it looks like they were just covering all their bases with all these applications. Their first preference is for RF 29, but everyone seems oblivious to the fact that RF 29 is in use (currently by KPFW; eventually by KTXA, supposedly)!
Once someone figures that out (hopefully without another collision as happened with RF 18 earlier this year), their second preference is for RF 12.
Can anyone get in touch with KNAV and/or the FCC about this mess?
JHBrandt said:
And now the FCC has told KQFW "no" to channel 24. Since they want to broadcast from Garland rather than Cedar Hill, they're expected to cause too much interference to HSN/25 near the Garland transmitter. (They're too low power to cause significant interference to KUVN/23.) Oh well, so much for DFW having consecutive virtual channels from 20 to 29 :
I suspect they'd have similar problems with currently vacant channels 33 and 49. So, now they have to:
- give up and stick with out-of-core channel 56 (until that gets pre-empted), or
- find a transmitter site in Cedar Hill (but that probably wouldn't overlap their current channel 7 contour), or
- find a transmitter site outside HSN/25's service contour and do a rimshot to avoid interfering with HSN/25 (but we all know how well that worked for KHFD/51 before they gave up and moved to Cedar Hill), or
- find another channel. They could request channel 47 and just accept the interference they'll get from 46 and 48. (They'll cause some interference too, but a low-power transmitter in a lightly-populated area will probably stay under the 0.5% threshold.) Or they could go VHF.
There aren't any really good options for this Godcaster.
JHBrandt said:And now the FCC has told KQFW "no" to channel 24. Since they want to broadcast from Garland rather than Cedar Hill, they're expected to cause too much interference to HSN/25 near the Garland transmitter. (They're too low power to cause significant interference to KUVN/23.) Oh well, so much for DFW having consecutive virtual channels from 20 to 29 :
To look at it from another angle, it seems like the FCC told KQFW something more like: "not so fast, my friend."
They've given KQFW the chance to file a minor amendment within 30 days to clear up the interference concerns. What makes this interesting is that KQFW's initial filing doesn't indicate any interference (as I read it) to the actual K25FW facility now on the air (DTV). There is interference shown to K25FW's recently shutdown analog plant.
Here's the QRM report for the channel 24 application:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS...?appn=101377388&qnum=5100©num=1&exhcnum=1
Although the figures are in a red attribute, it shows 0.0%/0.0% for what I surmise are the interference columns for the currently-operational K25FW facility (which is now a Dallas station, no longer licensed to Corsicana).
Bob E. Nelson said:JHBrandt said:And now the FCC has told KQFW "no" to channel 24. Since they want to broadcast from Garland rather than Cedar Hill, they're expected to cause too much interference to HSN/25 near the Garland transmitter. (They're too low power to cause significant interference to KUVN/23.) Oh well, so much for DFW having consecutive virtual channels from 20 to 29 :
To look at it from another angle, it seems like the FCC told KQFW something more like: "not so fast, my friend."
They've given KQFW the chance to file a minor amendment within 30 days to clear up the interference concerns. What makes this interesting is that KQFW's initial filing doesn't indicate any interference (as I read it) to the actual K25FW facility now on the air (DTV). There is interference shown to K25FW's recently shutdown analog plant.
Here's the QRM report for the channel 24 application:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS...?appn=101377388&qnum=5100©num=1&exhcnum=1
Although the figures are in a red attribute, it shows 0.0%/0.0% for what I surmise are the interference columns for the currently-operational K25FW facility (which is now a Dallas station, no longer licensed to Corsicana).
Apparently the FCC's analysis disagreed with KQFW's: their letter (here) claims interference to both the old (analog) and new (digital) transmitters, but it didn't include any details.
I don't know which analysis is correct. I would've expected KQFW's digital signal to be more likely to interfere with an adjacent digital signal than an adjacent analog one, but KQFW's analysis shows the opposite, so maybe it's a bit suspect. (OTOH, even the 0.4% QRM shown for the old analog facility would've been well within the FCC's 2% threshold for other LP stations. It'd surprise me if their analysis was that far off.)
Another option for KQFW I didn't cover above would be reduced power. The lower the power, the smaller the "QRM zone" around KQFW's transmitter will be, and they probably don't need a full 15 kW to reach their target audience.
- Status