NYC Digital TV Line-Up

[badjef]

These are the channels I get living on the Upper West Side. According to the list from www.tvfool.com, I'm missing quite a few low power broadcasters who don't transmit from the ESB or other midtown location. It's odd that I get WNJN from Montclair but not WFME from nearby West Orange NJ. Others say they have problems with WABC, WPIX and WNET since those stations remain on VHF channels. I do notice WABC drops out sometimes, even though I haven't touched the antenna. But I guess I live close enough to the ESB that these VHF channels aren't usually problems for me.

Gregg
[email protected]

Not necessarily odd, since we can't see ghosting or static, it is possible that the height of WFME off the local ground may be your problem or the direction on which the antenna of WFME is mounted. But you are definately closer to WNJN than to WFME.

Since we just don't get a picture with digital, it could be either/and/or.

West Mountain ain't the best signal, if it was, Z-100 would still be there.

The only reason WFME is still there is that they don't have the added expense of expensive tower rent.

I didn't know the calls were changed on "Ch#50". When I lived there, those calls were WNJM - the last letter "M" meant Montclair. 52 was WNJT - "T" for Trenton, etc. I'd be curious why they changed to "N".

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[Gregg]

I agree Jeff. Why go through the trouble of making such a small change in the call letters? And why not stay with M for Montclair?

After all, WNJT is licensed to Trenton and WNJB is licensed to New Brunswick. But then Channel 23 in Camden, with its transmitter in Waterford Works NJ, is called WNJS... I suppose for South Jersey. So maybe that's why Channel 50 is now WNJN for North Jersey.

I also wonder why New Jersey Network went through the effort to claim DT Channel 8 for WNJB and draw up plans to put its transmitter in Manhattan? It's clear from what others have said on this board that those plans are on indefinate hold.



Gregg
[email protected]

 

[badjef]

I agree Jeff. Why go through the trouble of making such a small change in the call letters? And why not stay with M for Montclair?
After all, WNJT is licensed to Trenton and WNJB is licensed to New Brunswick. But then Channel 23 in Camden, with its transmitter in Waterford Works NJ, is called WNJS... I suppose for South Jersey. So maybe that's why Channel 50 is now WNJN for North Jersey.
I also wonder why New Jersey Network went through the effort to claim DT Channel 8 for WNJB and draw up plans to put its transmitter in Manhattan? It's clear from what others have said on this board that those plans are on indefinate hold.
Gregg
[email protected]

You swerved into another question.
If WABC-TV could return to #7, can the digitals have adjacents where the analogs were not able to due to interference, so as to allow WNJN to move to #8?

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[dhett]

You swerved into another question.
If WABC-TV could return to #7, can the digitals have adjacents where the analogs were not able to due to interference, so as to allow WNJN to move to #8?

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

As long as the stations are of similar power, co-located adjacents are allowed, as the interference is small compared to the signals. In the Northeast, if VHF stations are 20 km (12 mi) apart or more, the difference in signal strength near each of the stations is enough for the near station to interfere with the more distant station, so adjacent stations would not be allowed. When the distance between adjacent stations is 110 km (68 mi) apart or more, interference is no longer a concern. In other parts of the country, VHF adjacents are allowed from co-located out to 23 km (14 mi). For UHF stations, the adjacent prohibited separation is 24 km (15 mi) out to 110 km (68 mi) in all parts of the country.

See FCC regs section 73.623(d)(2). (http://louise.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2010/73/623/)

 

[Gregg]

Do I understand that you're saying adjacent channel DTV stations can not be closer than 15 miles from each other?

In Boston there are DTV stations on 18, 19 and 20, as well as 41, 42 and 43. I assume they're on a common tower or on towers that are within 15 miles from each other.


Gregg
[email protected]

 

[tripinva]

Cannot be further than 15 miles, not closer.

- Trip

 

[dhett]

Trip is correct: co-located is OK, up to 15 miles apart is OK, 15-68 miles apart is prohibited, 68+ miles apart is OK. Think of the prohibited zone as a donut.

 

[badjef]

Trip is correct: co-located is OK, up to 15 miles apart is OK, 15-68 miles apart is prohibited, 68+ miles apart is OK. Think of the prohibited zone as a donut.

This sounds reverse of analogue then.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[dhett]

Trip is correct: co-located is OK, up to 15 miles apart is OK, 15-68 miles apart is prohibited, 68+ miles apart is OK. Think of the prohibited zone as a donut.

This sounds reverse of analogue then.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

With analog, the prohibited zone included both the donut and the donut hole. Digital allows adjacent stations from co-located out to 12-15 miles, depending on band and location. That was in theory; how are adjacent channels working in practice?

 

[badjef]

Trip is correct: co-located is OK, up to 15 miles apart is OK, 15-68 miles apart is prohibited, 68+ miles apart is OK. Think of the prohibited zone as a donut.

This sounds reverse of analogue then.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

With analog, the prohibited zone included both the donut and the donut hole. Digital allows adjacent stations from co-located out to 12-15 miles, depending on band and location. That was in theory; how are adjacent channels working in practice?

Good question. Since with digital, the pix is there or it isn't, if you have a portable, and you scan, if it locks on one and not the other one, that might be your answer. It doesn't show ghosting or adjacent interference. Or tropo for that matter.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[VeteranPD]

The FCC has created a damn mess out of something that worked well for over 60 years. You can't pick up 7,11 and 13 now since the early HD antennas were all UHF and some stations, quite foolishly, went back to their VHF assignments and HD doesn't seem to work well in the vhf range.
People were content to have a picture, even if it wasn't perfect. Down the shore we watched a World Series game 30 years ago with pair of rabbit ears. Not perfect but quite watchable. That same antenna a the same distance will get you a "no signal" incicator on your screen. The FCC has made it very clear that it has declared war on OTA broadcasting...especially TV and FM. They want it all on broadband.
Aim your antenna a Empire and you can't pick up Times Square and vice versa. Works great. Got any more bright ideas down there in D.C.? I live 6 air miles from the WFME-DT Transmitter in West Orange and can't pick them up...even with a 200,000 watt ERP signal. What a bill of goods we were sold.

 

[badjef]

The FCC has created a damn mess out of something that worked well for over 60 years. You can't pick up 7,11 and 13 now since the early HD antennas were all UHF and some stations, quite foolishly, went back to their VHF assignments and HD doesn't seem to work well in the vhf range.
People were content to have a picture, even if it wasn't perfect. Down the shore we watched a World Series game 30 years ago with pair of rabbit ears. Not perfect but quite watchable. That same antenna a the same distance will get you a "no signal" incicator on your screen. The FCC has made it very clear that it has declared war on OTA broadcasting...especially TV and FM. They want it all on broadband.
Aim your antenna a Empire and you can't pick up Times Square and vice versa. Works great. Got any more bright ideas down there in D.C.? I live 6 air miles from the WFME-DT Transmitter in West Orange and can't pick them up...even with a 200,000 watt ERP signal. What a bill of goods we were sold.

So, how do you really feel?


This was the same as HD radio, CD's, video discs, and AM stereo.
Washington is most inept when it comes to communications. That is saying a lot, especially when it comes to non-technical issues.
They "pass the bills, so we can see what's in them"

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[tripinva]

Where are you in relation to the WFME transmitter? They chose to install a highly directional antenna which means on one side you get 200 kW, and on the other, you get 2 kW.

- Trip

 

[w9wi]

The FCC has created a damn mess out of something that worked well for over 60 years. You can't pick up 7,11 and 13 now since the early HD antennas were all UHF and some stations, quite foolishly, went back to their VHF assignments and HD doesn't seem to work well in the vhf range.

A few thoughts....

- It is IMPOSSIBLE to adequately test a new broadcast technology. You can (and the FCC & industry did) run test transmitters & receivers. You can't test the interference profile that will exist in real life. Not without building out the entire transmitter network & hauling receivers everywhere where someone might watch. (i.e., the only way to tell what will happen in actual deployment is to do actual deployment)

This hit the FCC with analog as well, back around 1946. They didn't realize VHF propagation worked as well as it did -- they thought they could reuse the same channel in Albany, NYC, Lancaster PA, Washington, Boston, and Norfolk. Without actually rolling out transmitters in those places, and receivers everywhere between where someone might watch, they had no way of knowing.

- Broadcasters were rushed into the digital transition. The Supreme Court had recently overturned the must-carry rules that required cable to carry broadcasters' signals. Broadcasters realized cable could launch high-definition and digital service at any time, without requiring FCC approval. OTA stations would have to wait for the Commission to adopt a standard. They needed that standard, and the rules to implement it, NOW.

- The pressure from land-mobile and cellular interests to remove spectrum from UHF TV made it impossible to move VHF service to UHF without ruinous interference. (already, I would suggest interference is a major part of the problem some are having with digital reception)

- The demise of the TV repair shop/local appliance store leaves viewers at the mercy of untrained "big box store" employees for advice on antenna selection. This advice is usually wrong...

Here in this market (Nashville), several stores are selling UHF-only antennas. Even though the two highest-rated stations in town are on VHF, as is the PBS station. (by the way, the two highest-rated stations are *still* the two highest-rated stations since the transition, and by a very safe margin.) Some stores have even been telling people with existing outdoor analog antennas that those antennas will not work for digital & must be replaced with indoor "HDTV" -- and usually UHF-only -- antennas!

I have also see stores selling rabbit ears in towns 50-60 miles from the towers. Indoor antennas didn't work for analog in these locations (at least not if you owned a computer...) and it's not reasonable to expect them to work for digital.

---

BTW, it's not reasonable to blame Washington for CDs or video discs...

 

[stationless listener]

I wonder if/when One World Trade Center is finished that stations that had an application to move there should follow through. If I'm correct, the following stations have an application pending for a possible move to 1 WTC: WCBS, WNBC, WABC, WPIX, WNET, WPXN. Perhaps WCBS could benefit as moving a bit further down the island could lessen the interference with WFSB for folks in parts of Connecticut. Channel 13 would also benefit by being higher, so that folks in the northern suburbs can receive the station. I don't know what the benefit would be for the rest, although there's a chance that interference would increase between WPXN and WPPX, for folks in central NJ.

According to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/business/media/06pbs.html?_r=1

WNET.org is expressing interest in NJN. I do hope that they get at least a part of NJN, which would be the northernmost stations. They can then finally move the transmitter of WNJB into Manhattan, keep the NJ-centered programming on their main channel while adding World and Create as subchannels. That would allow people in the city to get those channel OTA. WABC would have to be convinced to allow to co-locate their RF 7 with the RF 8. A move to 1 WTC would achieve that goal. I'm not an engineer, so I could be wrong on that.

WPIX will add Antenna TV sometime next year. So that makes it three subchannels and one HD channel. Do they really have enough bandwidth for one more channel?

 

[ansky212]

WPIX will add Antenna TV sometime next year. So that makes it three subchannels and one HD channel. Do they really have enough bandwidth for one more channel?

I have wondered this too. I thought they would drop Estrella and put Antenna TV on 11-2. But according to the Antenna TV website Antenna will be on 11-3, which means This TV is moving to 11-4. As of this morning there is still no sign of an 11-4 subchannel. The network is supposed to launch on Jan 1. which is only 3 weeks away, so I would think they would put up 11-4 with a test pattern soon so they can move This TV there on Jan 1.

 

[VeteranPD]

Some of the recent news stories following the progress of the Freedom Tower have noted that it's 1776 foor height includes a TV Tower. I'm pretty sure that I had read at one point that broadcasters were "done" with this and Empire would be the home of NYC OTA TV. Considering the crazy expenses that would be involved with a move to Freedom Tower and the fact that OTA is such a small percentage of viewers, one wonders if we have already seen the last of transmitter moves. The best thing that could happen (and I don't know if it can) would be for channels 7,11 and 13 to get the heck off VHF and get a UHF allocation...their signals are woefully bad.

 

[luperm]

As far as I know, in correspondence to the FCC, the TV broadcasters have expressed an intent to return to the Freedom Tower upon completion. At this point, the purpose is to protect their predicted coverage contour from that site, as opposed to the Empire State Building. Whether they actually return there is unknown.

 

[stationless listener]

Well, if the TV tower is going to be built they may as well start using it. It would be like getting a Mercedes Benz without paying for it and then leaving it in the garage, not taking it out for a drive. OK, there will sure be some expense in moving equipment and engineers inside the facility. However, it would be a waste for the thing to be unused, I think.

Maybe they're afraid that somebody would try to bring it down? That would be the most plausible reason for the stations not to use it.

 

[tripinva]

How about insanely high rent? That's a good reason, and was the reason cited by the stations for passing on 1WTC.

- Trip