NYC TV Application at the WTC Site?

[e-dawg]

I was looking at the FCC database and I notice several NYC TV stations has application for WTC site? Is the Freedom tower going to have a TV attena top of 1776 ft?

Just search for....
WCBS 2
WNBC 4
WABC 7
WPIX 11
WNET 13
WPXN 31


I'm surprised that there is no application from WNYW 5, WWOR 9, WNYE 25, WXTV 41, WNJU 47, and WFUT 68.

Also, why are 3 radio stations still listed as License at the old WTC site? WKCR 89.9 FM, WPAT 93.1 FM, and WNYC 93.9FM.

 

[luperm]

The broadcasters are maintaining registration of their displaced WTC facilities to preserve their pre-9/11 coverage contours.
I don't believe that there are currently plans to build transmission facilities at the Freedom Tower.
Broadcasters seem to be working together to maximize what they have at Empire and 4 Times Square.

 

[TimeIsTight]

People on the inside and in a position to know say that with a high percentage of viewers now getting their TV pictures from cable and satellite, the cost of building yet another over-the-air transmitter facility cannot be economically justified. In fact, there is some talk of ultimately eliminating over-the-air transmission altogether. Bringing in those extra viewers may cost stations more to do than it is worth in extra ad revenue. And besides, the spectrum space would be more valuable for cell phones and data.

Of course, with the economic slowdown forcing some subscribers to drop cable and satellite and the good over-the-air TV signals some people now get since switching to digital transmission the percentages of over-the-air viewers may be changing and require a second look.

 

[ansky212]

The broadcasters are maintaining registration of their displaced WTC facilities to preserve their pre-9/11 coverage contours.

The WTC site is only a couple miles from the ESB. Would this small distance really make any difference in coverage area? Maybe a few people to the north lose coverage and a few to the south gain coverage.

 

[reelyreal]

I know it's unrelated to the TV aspect of this, but for radio reference:

WNYC finally received a CP for permanent facilities at the Empire State Building with 5.2 kw, short spaced to WZMX Hartford.

WPAT has a petition for reconsideration pending at the FCC since 2003 for permanent facilities at 4 Times Square. The new facilities will cause interference to co-channel WHYN-FM in Springfield. While that hangs in limbo, they have to continue to operate with an STA.

WKCR has an application for license to cover of its facilities, it's just waiting on approval.

While suitable solutions are found for displaced stations in the most crowded media market in America, those World Trade Center licenses hang. It's kind of eerie...

 

[luperm]

The WTC site is only a couple miles from the ESB. Would this small distance really make any difference in coverage area? Maybe a few people to the north lose coverage and a few to the south gain coverage.

It only seems like a few miles but most, if not all, of the TVs were already short spaced.

 

[DTV-Chief]

The WTC site is only a couple miles from the ESB. Would this small distance really make any difference in coverage area? Maybe a few people to the north lose coverage and a few to the south gain coverage.

It only seems like a few miles but most, if not all, of the TVs were already short spaced.

How has that short spacing been affected by the sunset of analog TV?

 

[VeteranPD]

AFASIK, there is no plan for the transmission of broadcast signals from the Freedom Tower..nor should there be. All of this shifting about is getting silly when one considers the decline of OTA TV viewing. It's just not worth the expense. Even with FM, how ,uch are you really going to improve your signal by moving a few blocks in one direction or the other. Main site should be Empire, back up site Times Square and be done with it.

 

[tripinva]

Even with FM, how ,uch are you really going to improve your signal by moving a few blocks in one direction or the other. Main site should be Empire, back up site Times Square and be done with it.

If you get to increase the height of your transmitting antenna by 300-400 feet by moving a few blocks, then you can improve coverage quite a bit. Utilizing census data with the FCC coverage contours, the WCBS 1WTC "placeholder" application is predicted to cover 19.8 million people, versus the 18.1 million people of the current facility on ESB.

- Trip

 

[TheBigA]

Like most things in New York, this is a complicated story. The original design for the Freedom Tower called for a broadcast tower. The Manhattan Television Alliance was charged with its construction. They applied for the permits, and that's what you found at the FCC database. However, two years ago, the Port Authority said it would charge the Alliance $10 million to build the tower, and another $10 million a year in rent. So the Alliance walked. But the Port Authority NEEDS that TV tower to reach its designed height of 1776 feet. I have a feeling as we get closer to completion, a deal will be made.

The fact is that with digital TV, stations will have more programming options using their OTA signal. The public is looking for a way to get out of increasingly expensive cable fees. And there is a desire on the part of local TV stations to provide multi-cast options on their digital co-channels. So stay tuned, as they say.

Also, in the articles I've read, the Port Authority was emphatic that this broadcast tower was going to be TV only. No radio stations. But if the TV Alliance isn't interested, and they need the tower for architectual reasons, they may change their rules.

 

[Bob1370]

Everything may change further as the FCC rearranges the TV allocation table to clear more space in the upper UHF band (above ch. 40) for broadband data and Internet. All the heritage VHF signals now using UHF OTA will probably be pushed back down to their old channels from analog days with increased ERP (probably equivalent to their old visual peak power). If that happens, all of NY's stations except Channel 13 will be properly spaced relative to co-channel stations. (13 was short-spaced to WNYT in Albany, which in turn would have to directionalize its signal once more if it moves off its current Ch. 12 allocation.)

 

[Bill_W]

Everything may change further as the FCC rearranges the TV allocation table to clear more space in the upper UHF band (above ch. 40) for broadband data and Internet. All the heritage VHF signals now using UHF OTA will probably be pushed back down to their old channels from analog days with increased ERP (probably equivalent to their old visual peak power). If that happens, all of NY's stations except Channel 13 will be properly spaced relative to co-channel stations. (13 was short-spaced to WNYT in Albany, which in turn would have to directionalize its signal once more if it moves off its current Ch. 12 allocation.)

So, they will be forced to buy VHF transmitters and will not be able to use their relatively new UHF transmitters?

 

[luperm]

Everything may change further as the FCC rearranges the TV allocation table to clear more space in the upper UHF band (above ch. 40) for broadband data and Internet. All the heritage VHF signals now using UHF OTA will probably be pushed back down to their old channels from analog days with increased ERP (probably equivalent to their old visual peak power). If that happens, all of NY's stations except Channel 13 will be properly spaced relative to co-channel stations. (13 was short-spaced to WNYT in Albany, which in turn would have to directionalize its signal once more if it moves off its current Ch. 12 allocation.)

You never know, I would never say "never"...but I would find it very surprising if the FCC came along (again) and told broadcasters that the millions of dollars each of them spent on engineering, building and optimizing their DTV facilities was for nothing.

Even with using the low-VHF TV slots, cutting off UHF at Channel 40 would probably not leave nearly enough room for the TV stations that currently exist. The NAB would crap its pants if something like this came along.

 

[VeteranPD]

Ever get the feeling that the FCC has declared war on OTA television? Yet another frequency shift! While I'd like to see all vhf stations back on their original VHF allocations (and get ride of the "channel 2 is really channel 36 nonsense")it seems that digital signals just plain suck on VHF. I assume it's all a matter of power and if that's the case these stations will need a hell of a lot more power..perhaps equal to the original power on VHF analog?? If so, look for powers on high VHF in the 100 Kw range.
Yes, the digital pictures are beautiful....perfect. Yes, you can add a ton of revenue producing channels...but it ain't worth a damn if you can't get a reliable signal. The other problem is that people have almost totally forgotten that OTA TV even exists.
I prefer to watch OTA, even though I have cable...the pictures on OTA are just better. Period. I find that most people get immediately turned off when you tell them that they will have to reactivate their old rooftop antenna..if it's still any good. They want to do it with rabbit ears..minimal investment of time and money. People are so used to the cable or dish where someone comes in, installs it, maintains it (allegedly) and YOU just pick up your remote and enjoy. This all makes OTA a hard sell.

 

[ansky212]

The other problem is that people have almost totally forgotten that OTA TV even exists.

I think it's actually the opposite. I hear more people talking about OTA tv now than I ever did before. As the cost of cable continues to rise, people are realizing that they can get an HD picture free with an antenna and are dumping cable completely.

 

[badjef]

The other problem is that people have almost totally forgotten that OTA TV even exists.

I think it's actually the opposite. I hear more people talking about OTA tv now than I ever did before. As the cost of cable continues to rise, people are realizing that they can get an HD picture free with an antenna and are dumping cable completely.

That is temporary. OTA is dead. If it weren't, when built, 1WTC would still be considered as a television broadcast facility.

Stick a fork in it. The FCC wants the freq's. They will get them.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!