Question about WFAA

[sathman01]

Recently, I "cut the cable" and I can receive just about every local DFW channel except for WFAA. I did some research and learned that WFAA is running their channel on RF-8 while the others are above RF-13 including KERA at RF-14.

I am wondering if WFAA being on RF-8 has any bearing on the signal and if so why doesn't WFAA move to a higher band?

 

[arnoldevns]

DTV does not work as well on VHF as it does on UHF. You will see another thread about KTVT ending their simulcast on RF 11 and turning on their full power facility on RF 19. Going back a bit.. KTVT got thousands of complaints about people not being able to pick up their DTV signal on RF 11. They fixed this by starting a simulcast on KTXA's former DTV signal, RF 19. (KTXA moved to RF 29) During this process, KTVT filed a note with the FCC indicating that they lost something like 46% of their over the air viewers in the Nielsen ratings when they were digital on RF 11 only. (they had been DTV on RF 18 - if I recall correctly - before the DTV transition date in 2009)

I'm not sure channel 8 has had the same type of problems that 11 did.

The station that I'm sure has the biggest problem in our area is KFWD on RF 9. That's because KCEN in Temple is also on RF 9.
Their signals begin to overlap pretty severely in Hill County (Hillsboro.) I can't imagine that either station can be received well down there.

In theory the VHF stations are cheaper to run because you don't use nearly as much power. But if people can't get your station, you lose ratings and revenue making it a moot point. Indeed, I suspect many in the industry would be happier to see the FCC move everyone to UHF and let them all operate with 5 million watts (instead of the 1 million they're currently permitted with DTV)

 

[JHBrandt]

I'm glad you did the research. Channel assignments in the digital era are anything but obvious. But you're right: WFAA and KFWD are only broadcast on VHF; DFW's other stations are all broadcast on UHF.

WFAA is fairly powerful for a VHF station at 55 kilowatts (abbreviated kW). In comparison KTVT's soon-to-be-gone VHF signal is 23 kW, and KFWD's is only 13 kW. But you still need a VHF antenna to receive it. And (pet peeve) there are a lot of unscrupulous dealers selling UHF-only antennas as "HD antennas" or "digital antennas" or whatever.

 

[w9wi]

Recently, I "cut the cable" and I can receive just about every local DFW channel except for WFAA. I did some research and learned that WFAA is running their channel on RF-8 while the others are above RF-13 including KERA at RF-14.

I am wondering if WFAA being on RF-8 has any bearing on the signal and if so why doesn't WFAA move to a higher band?

What kind of antenna are you using? I work for a station on RF-10, and we've been plagued by the sale of junk antennas in big box stores. If your antenna doesn't have "ears" (think the old-fashioned "rabbit ears"), I'd return it. Really, the old rabbit ears are *still* the best indoor antenna you can buy.

"Boosted"/"Amplified" indoor antennas are also a bad idea, even if they have "ears". If you're close enough to the towers to get a useful signal from an indoor antenna, you're close enough that any amplifier is likely to be overloaded by other signals.

*Many* viewers in a particular neighborhood about ten miles east of our tower have found that replacing a "flat panel" or "boosted" antenna with rabbit ears brings in our station with a perfectly reliable signal -- and delivers several other channels the viewer didn't know about.

If you're too far from the towers to receive the stations with rabbit ears, you're too far to use an indoor antenna. Sometimes, an "outdoor" antenna installed in the attic (or garage eaves) is a good option. But again, the older antenna designs are best -- you need the "crosspieces" you saw with the older antennas.

Bottom line is, modern "digital" antennas are designed for appearance, not for electrical performance. It's kinda like selling a car with a Ferrari body but a 2-cylinder lawnmower engine.

==

Why not move to a higher band? The reason varies from station to station but I think there are three most likely explanations:

- VHF operation is a LOT less expensive. Lower powers are required to cover the same area. Our station uses a 7,500-watt transmitter; UHF operation would require roughly ten times as much power. That means ten times the utility bill. (not to mention a more expensive transmitter)
- A UHF channel might not have been available that would deliver the same interference-free coverage.
- Now, with "spectrum repacking" on the horizon, the UHF options are even fewer.

 

[JHBrandt]

It's kinda like selling a car with a Ferrari body but a 2-cylinder lawnmower engine.

LOL! Isn't that the truth!

The worst thing is, not only do they make lousy VHF antennas, they're usually overpriced to boot. These hucksters have made million$ by misleading folks into thinking they need some special "high-tech" antenna for digital TV, then dressing up a plain-vanilla UHF bow-tie to make it look like something worth $50.

For indoor antennas, an ordinary rabbit-ears+UHF loop combo is often all someone needs. If they live a little further out, I often recommend trying the Terk HDTVi, a rabbit-ears+mini LPDA combo available at Fry's. It looks cool, like those "high-tech" antennas; but it actually works. Also I refer folks here for advice on adjusting rabbit ears.

If that's not good enough either, the Winegard SS-3000 might do it. It doesn't use rabbit ears, but has a wide UHF reflector that doubles as the main resonant element for VHF. One drawback is that it's amplified, but if you need this antenna, overload probably isn't a concern anyhow. If that's still not enough, it's time to go to the attic or roof.

 

[Kent]

Two of my locals are on VHF (8 and 12), and I have little trouble getting either one of them. They do drop occasionally, but so do the locals on UHF. The difference is pretty subtle between the two of them. Poor antennas and just general misinformation seem to be the biggest issues.

KTVT, however, had additional problems when it went back to 11. The biggest was probably KSWO-TV out of Lawton, OK, which was on DT-11 and didn't really have the option of going back to its analog channel (7) because KOCO in Oklahoma City landed there. KTVT simply couldn't get the power it needed to reach its viewers on 11. Going back to DT-19 made sense.

 

[JHBrandt]

Something interesting: After almost a year, the FCC approved WFAA's application to upgrade their auxiliary facility. The new auxiliary facility will have a lower transmitting antenna but higher ERP. It'll cover just slightly less area than their main transmitter, but ironically, because of the higher ERP the auxiliary facility will probably be easier to receive than the main one if you aren't at the fringe of their reception area.

 

[KTN Corp]

What kind of antenna are you using? I work for a station on RF-10, and we've been plagued by the sale of junk antennas in big box stores. If your antenna doesn't have "ears" (think the old-fashioned "rabbit ears"), I'd return it. Really, the old rabbit ears are *still* the best indoor antenna you can buy.

"Boosted"/"Amplified" indoor antennas are also a bad idea, even if they have "ears". If you're close enough to the towers to get a useful signal from an indoor antenna, you're close enough that any amplifier is likely to be overloaded by other signals.

*Many* viewers in a particular neighborhood about ten miles east of our tower have found that replacing a "flat panel" or "boosted" antenna with rabbit ears brings in our station with a perfectly reliable signal -- and delivers several other channels the viewer didn't know about.

If you're too far from the towers to receive the stations with rabbit ears, you're too far to use an indoor antenna. Sometimes, an "outdoor" antenna installed in the attic (or garage eaves) is a good option. But again, the older antenna designs are best -- you need the "crosspieces" you saw with the older antennas.

Bottom line is, modern "digital" antennas are designed for appearance, not for electrical performance. It's kinda like selling a car with a Ferrari body but a 2-cylinder lawnmower engine.

==

Why not move to a higher band? The reason varies from station to station but I think there are three most likely explanations:

- VHF operation is a LOT less expensive. Lower powers are required to cover the same area. Our station uses a 7,500-watt transmitter; UHF operation would require roughly ten times as much power. That means ten times the utility bill. (not to mention a more expensive transmitter)
- A UHF channel might not have been available that would deliver the same interference-free coverage.
- Now, with "spectrum repacking" on the horizon, the UHF options are even fewer.

I don't know what is going on with KTVT or the other RF VHF DTV stations in DFW. KHOU is either doing fine on RF 11 or most Houstonians have cable/satellite since there have been no complaints about reception of any of the RF VHF Houston stations. The only time I haven't received RF VHF in a scan is on a portable 7" DTV with its retractable dipole antenna that I bought and promptly returned a couple of Christmases ago. Maybe its the higher HAAT of the 600 m Missouri City sticks vs. the 450 m Cedar Hill towers.

I just bought the Winegard FL5000C (unamplified) Flat Wave antenna last Friday at Costco. They are in the process of changing over their inventory to the FL5500C amplified (USB powered) Flat Wave antenna, so I just bought one of the last ones. The nearest Costco had the amplified antenna for $48.99 that day, so I decided to go to the next closest one and found the unamplified antenna still in stock for $29.99 (almost 2x the savings). I had been wanting it since Christmas but had been waiting for the price to go down after Christmas, which never happened. I finally had to test one before deciding to "cut the cord" after I received the $140 Comcast bill for Digital Preferred Cable and Performance Internet double play.

The antenna gets all the full power stations (especially the VHF) from Missouri City and some of the low-powers. Still on the fence with respect to "cutting the cord", but I think I'll keep this antenna even if I keep the cable (just in case as a backup). The Flat Wave performs as expected considering Winegard's good reputation was on the line! I don't know if the amplification on the FL5500C overloads the signal, so go get the FL5000C first before trying the amplified one at your local Costco instead if you still can.

The world is not black and white--not all flat antennas are bad and not all rabbit ears are good!

 

[JHBrandt]

If there are any manufacturers from whom I'd trust a flat "high-tech" antenna, they'd be Winegard and Antennas Direct. As a rule they make good antennas. Winegard's SS-3000 is often praised as one of the best indoor antennas available.

I'm disappointed that Winegard's discontinuing their unamplified flat antenna, though. Although square, the FL5000C appears to be basically a loop antenna which has been scaled up for improved VHF performance (possibly with some internal loading to further improve the impedance match at VHF frequencies). A loop is a reasonable way to design a smaller VHF antenna, but it'll only have about 1.5 dB more gain than rabbit ears at best. Even the best amp can't make up for that.

The FL5000C still looks a bit too small to me. If it were a bit larger (about 15" square), it'd probably perform better at the bottom of the VHF-Hi band, where WFAA, KFWD, and KUHT are. WFAA and KUHT have plenty of power but Hispanic viewers will probably find KFWD challenging to receive with either rabbit ears or a loop like the FL5000C.

 

[KTN Corp]

If there are any manufacturers from whom I'd trust a flat "high-tech" antenna, they'd be Winegard and Antennas Direct. As a rule they make good antennas. Winegard's SS-3000 is often praised as one of the best indoor antennas available.

I'm disappointed that Winegard's discontinuing their unamplified flat antenna, though. Although square, the FL5000C appears to be basically a loop antenna which has been scaled up for improved VHF performance (possibly with some internal loading to further improve the impedance match at VHF frequencies). A loop is a reasonable way to design a smaller VHF antenna, but it'll only have about 1.5 dB more gain than rabbit ears at best. Even the best amp can't make up for that.

The FL5000C still looks a bit too small to me. If it were a bit larger (about 15" square), it'd probably perform better at the bottom of the VHF-Hi band, where WFAA, KFWD, and KUHT are. WFAA and KUHT have plenty of power but Hispanic viewers will probably find KFWD challenging to receive with either rabbit ears or a loop like the FL5000C.

BTW, the "C" at the end stands for "Costco exclusive".  I think there are VHF bowtie-like elements in the middle with the UHF loop at the edges.  The bowties are probably long enough to match the wavelengths at VHF-Hi.  The webpage for the product says that the elements are made out of silver; no wonder it works so well! This was the only antenna I considered buying since the Costco buyers always pick the good products to put on the shelf.

Oddly enough, KHOU is the hardest to scan in my experience with differing combinations of TV and antenna setups, but easy to receive with this antenna.  I guess being on the Senior Road Tower makes it hard to position other antennas at the correct angle to get all the channels.  But KTVT's problems on RF 11 can be attributed to the short tower and that most of the Metroplex population is in the opposite northern half.  (Half of Houston lives "below the nose" the Missouri City sticks.)

KUHT and KTRK are the easiest VHFs to receive and both are on the Blue Ridge Tower.  KTRK is the easiest to receive in my experience (probably due to frequency/wavelength) with KUHT a very close second.

But the full power RF UHFs always dominate the VHFs!  Hopefully Houston (and Dallas) can be all RF UHF markets one day, especially with UHF-only antennas being widespread in electronics stores and in-use at people's homes.

 

[JHBrandt]

Until someone's willing to take one apart we'll never know for sure. But it's probably the other way around: a UHF bow-tie or loop in the middle, and a VHF loop around the edge. Reason I think so is that a standard UHF loop has a diameter of 7" and a circumference of 22", which matches UHF wavelengths well. That would fit in the antenna's center easily.

But elements have to be larger to resonate at VHF-Hi's longer wavelengths. At 200 MHz, wavelength is about 1.5 meters (5 feet), so a half-wave dipole would be about 30 inches - much wider than this antenna. But a full-wave loop would be 60 inches, and a loop around this antenna's edge would be close to that (50 inches). They may even cram in some extra length by giving the outer loop a bow-tie appearance.

You're right: if you have stations in different directions, it can be tough to position a highly directional antenna.

An all-UHF market would be ideal: it'd make for smaller, simpler antennas and more consistent reception by viewers. Unfortunately, the FCC and Congress are moving in the opposite direction and want to hand another big chunk of UHF spectrum to AT&T, Verizon, etc. So we're likely to see more, not fewer, VHF stations in the future