-
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
How Many TV Stations Are Being Repacked Into Low VHF?
- Thread starter Markxxx
- Start date
I found a list at https://www.rabbitears.info/repackchannels.php
The stations highlighted in red are moving from UHF to low VHF. The ones in yellow are moving from high VHF to low VHF.
In the Los Angeles DMA, for example, San Bernardino PBS member KVCR virtual channel 24 has moved from UHF channel 26 to VHF channel 5. Later this month (don’t remember the exact date), Spanish-language duopoly KWHY 22 (Ind.) and KBEH 63 (Iglesia Universal [Universal Church]), currently channel-sharing on UHF 42, will move to VHF 4.
I hope I was able to answer your question.
The stations highlighted in red are moving from UHF to low VHF. The ones in yellow are moving from high VHF to low VHF.
In the Los Angeles DMA, for example, San Bernardino PBS member KVCR virtual channel 24 has moved from UHF channel 26 to VHF channel 5. Later this month (don’t remember the exact date), Spanish-language duopoly KWHY 22 (Ind.) and KBEH 63 (Iglesia Universal [Universal Church]), currently channel-sharing on UHF 42, will move to VHF 4.
I hope I was able to answer your question.
well sort of
Full Powered/Class A it was voluntary if you went from UHF to VHF Lo, VHF Hi or if you went from VHF Hi--> VHF Low. Stations got money to move from UHF to VHF or go off the air (and channel share if you wanted to). But if you were on UHF and did nothing you will stay on UHF.
But translators/low powered stations had no protection. If you had a low powered station on say RF25 the FCC could assign a full powered station to RF25 and then the low powered station had a 3 month window last year to request a new channel.
One thing is stations are moving RF stations within the band they are assigned to. And when you look at some moves you may wonder why its being done. Like as example in Baltimore WBAL (NBC) is moving from RF11 to RF12 and then WJZ (CBS) is moving from RF13 to RF11. Reason was some stations on same RF channel nearby had some interference that was tolerable (on the fringes). Well the FCC kept those the same if they moved a station. They didnt want to create a new scenario with interference. That is why both WCBS NY and WFSB Hartford are both on RF33 and both are moving to RF36.
Er, that's what he said. It's not a new scenario, it preserves the situation as it is today.
- Trip
It's not like the towers are side by side. I assume it would not be a huge problem as the transmitters are what 80 miles apart?
WVIR (NBC) Charlottesville is moving to VHF 2. WHDF (CW) Florence AL is also moving to VHF 2. The rest are PBS, religious or Spanish stations. Out west, KWHY Los Angeles is moving to 4, and KVCR San Bernardino to 5. Those will be wonderful Eskip DX beacons for Southern California from here, the first time since before the DTV transition. (Of course, I also had XETV-6 audio multiple times early this decade, but in terms of lower frequencies below FM...)
Also surprising to see WGBH moving to VHF 5. I wonder if that will hurt their ratings and viewer support from OTA viewers.
Also surprising to see WGBH moving to VHF 5. I wonder if that will hurt their ratings and viewer support from OTA viewers.
WQED in Pittsburgh is moving from VHF 13 down to VHF 2. This in exchange for auction cash to try and pay down the massive debt that was racked-up by prior management. Their transition channel was UHF 38, which they could have kept, which would have fetched them WAY more in the auction than what they actually received.
It seems this station is mismanaged in every way possible.
Last edited:
38 is gone in the repack...core will be 2-36...38 and up are going away
Hindsight is 20-20 vision, goes the old cliche. In 2009, VHF-Hi seemed the sweet spot for broadcasters. Lower utility bills than UHF and good, if not great coverage. OTA viewers didn't really count for enough. UHF 38 might have fetched more in the most recent repack auction, but who might have envisioned that scenario in 2009?
actually the FCC is to blame for issues with High VHF...I bring back a post that Mike Kohl (global-cm.net) says back in 2009 after the DTV conversion
We have been attempting to cover the fallout from the June 12th shutoff of full power analog television signals across the United States. It turns out that most of the public WAS ready for the transition, and that television stations were equally ready for that plug to be pulled, forcing everyone into permanent digital mode. But it turns out that flawed engineering data at the FCC has caused a major fiasco with stations that are now using VHF channels 2 to 13 for digital. Most visible examples include channel 13 in Baltimore, which was doing fine with its analog VHF channel, and equally well if not even better with their temporary UHF digital frequency. Once they shut off analog on VHF, turned off the temporary UHF digital signal, and then turned on VHF digital, a nasty surprise was found. As an outsider, all I can see is that highly visible engineering people must have been sleeping through much of their elementary school mathematics classes, and missed the parts on multiplication and division. Let's see if the rest of you can pass this test: If a UHF TV station was allowed to transmit 5 million watts video power in analog, and then given permission to use 1 million watts for digital, that would mean that the digital signal is using 20% of the power of previous analog signal. Suppose that a VHF station on channel 13 was previously transmitting at the maximum 316 Kw allowed for analog (just as UHF channels were allowed 5000 Kw on analog), would it not make a little bit of sense that the digital allotment should be somewhere near 20% of the previous analog power output? That number would be just over 60 Kw in most circumstances. Why were VHF channels given power outputs typically between 10 and 30 Kw? Did nobody realize that you would get extremely reduced coverage at a fraction of the power? And there was no real-world testing situation in many cases to see if digital VHF performance was adequate at proposed power levels?? Somewhere in the explanation should include the word "idiot", in my humble opinion. At least the FCC is now acting at previously unheard of speed to respond to broadcasters that are struggling with the power levels authorized, and giving them permission to crank up the power. It's still sort of an experimental process, with those complaining the loudest getting the attention (and permission) to increase power levels. Let's hope that things work out for the best sooner than later. Next is the plan to allow fill-in translators and other rebroadcasters to go on the air in areas that digital is now not working---after being satisfactory for analog signals for many years. Another debacle that will take a long time to straighten our!
- Status