Question re: Non-Commercial on commercial allocations

[Markxxx]

I was wondering if anyone had a list or knew where on the FCC website (I hate searching that thing I can never find anything LOL ) that has a list of non-commercial stations broadcasting on commercial licenses.

Now someone once sent me this <a target="_blank" href=http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr73.606.htm> List of Allocations</a>

Is this list correct and up to date? If so than that is all I need

I was wondering because I found a couple of things

For instance they list Channel 2 in Boston as non-commercial. Is this so? I was reading that it was a commerical allocation that was being used for a non commercial channel WGBH?

Now it lists channel 16 in Pittsburgh and Channel 13 in Newerk as being commercial which is correct (if I am mistaken let me know)

So basically if someone can tell me if the url of the above list is right than that would be what I need

If it is wrong does anyone know of an accurate list?

Thanks<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[KeithE]

> I was wondering if anyone had a list or knew where on the
> FCC website (I hate searching that thing I can never find
> anything LOL ) that has a list of non-commercial stations
> broadcasting on commercial licenses.
>
> Now someone once sent me this List of Allocations
>
> Is this list correct and up to date? If so than that is all
> I need

It's pretty close but it's a year old. There were changes to Phoenix (39 is now a commercial allocation) and Holbrook (11 is now non-commercial), AZ due to the Daystar/Telemundo channel swap that's coming in the next few days. There may be others as well.

One error I did notice is that Grand Junction CO's Channel 4 is flagged as a nom-comm. It is the Fox affiliate for that area.

> I was wondering because I found a couple of things
>
> For instance they list Channel 2 in Boston as
> non-commercial. Is this so? I was reading that it was a
> commerical allocation that was being used for a non
> commercial channel WGBH?

Boston's Channel 2 was a commercial CP in the '50s but the station was never built. It is a non-commercial allocation. Same goes for Channel 20 in Chicago, once a commercial allocation (never-built WIND-TV).

> Now it lists channel 16 in Pittsburgh and Channel 13 in
> Newerk as being commercial which is correct (if I am
> mistaken let me know)

I don't know why Newark's 13 was never changed to non-commercial status since there hasn't been a commercial station on that channel since the early '60s.

 

[pab]

> Is this list correct and up to date? If so than that is all
> I need

That entire list went out the window, for all intents and purposes, with the beginning of the DTV transition.

For example, here in New Jersey, the non-com allocation of 36 was deleted for Atlantic City so 36 could become Wildwood's WMGM-DT. Likewise, the 59 allocation for Vineland was completely deleted; no alternative has been suggested for it.

Once the entire DTV channel selection has been completed, we can expect the master list to be completely redrawn. And we can probably expect a lot of the allocations that were assigned but never built to disappear forever.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Pab Sungenis Project - http://www.lowbudgetradio.com</P>

 

[Markxxx]

> > Is this list correct and up to date? If so than that is
> all
> > I need
>
> That entire list went out the window, for all intents and
> purposes, with the beginning of the DTV transition.
>
> For example, here in New Jersey, the non-com allocation of
> 36 was deleted for Atlantic City so 36 could become
> Wildwood's WMGM-DT. Likewise, the 59 allocation for
> Vineland was completely deleted; no alternative has been
> suggested for it.
>
> Once the entire DTV channel selection has been completed, we
> can expect the master list to be completely redrawn. And we
> can probably expect a lot of the allocations that were
> assigned but never built to disappear forever.
>
I am assuming, and if not mistaken, I probably heard it here that the allocations will still carry over. In other words, if a non commerical station is broadcasting on a digital channel the allocation will remain commercial. If that makes sense. It makes sense when I write it....LOL

 

[pab]

> I am assuming, and if not mistaken, I probably heard it here
> that the allocations will still carry over. In other words,
> if a non commerical station is broadcasting on a digital
> channel the allocation will remain commercial. If that makes
> sense. It makes sense when I write it....LOL

Yes, but there are allocations on that list that haven't been built yet (like Channel 36 in Atlantic City, NJ) which haven't been accounted for in the digital allocations. No one knows yet whether those non-com allocations will be re-allocated once the transition is complete.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Pab Sungenis Project - http://www.lowbudgetradio.com</P>

 

[w9wi]

> Yes, but there are allocations on that list that haven't
> been built yet (like Channel 36 in Atlantic City, NJ) which
> haven't been accounted for in the digital allocations. No
> one knows yet whether those non-com allocations will be
> re-allocated once the transition is complete.

It was my understanding that all unused allocations at the beginning of the digital transition have been deleted.

At some point, once all the digital channels have sorted themselves out (all the channel elections have been made, analogs shut down, etc...) the FCC will again consider applications to allot new channels. I'm not of the sense they will of their own accord allot replacement channels for those deleted, but if someone files an acceptable petition they'll consider it.

Since many of the channel "taboos" seem to have gone away with DTV, it would seem likely a lot *more* channels can be allotted once transition is complete.

 

[KMRichards]

> Since many of the channel "taboos" seem to have gone away
> with DTV, it would seem likely a lot *more* channels can be
> allotted once transition is complete.

The taboos went away only because of co-location of transmitter sites for all (or most) stations in a market. I would suspect that new allocations will have specific requirements for co-location in order to prevent those taboos from cropping up again.

Interestingly enough, the taboos had already started to disappear with the advent of LPTV. Here in Los Angeles (check your own pages, Doug) we have a full power NCE on analog 28 and a LPTV on analog 27, both transmitting from Mount Wilson with no interference or reception problems.

Scott Fybush (or was it Trip Ericson?) explained it a while back ...<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[clichemoth]

> > Since many of the channel "taboos" seem to have gone away
> > with DTV, it would seem likely a lot *more* channels can
> be
> > allotted once transition is complete.
>
> The taboos went away only because of co-location of
> transmitter sites for all (or most) stations in a market. I
> would suspect that new allocations will have specific
> requirements for co-location in order to prevent those
> taboos from cropping up again.
>
> Interestingly enough, the taboos had already started to
> disappear with the advent of LPTV. Here in Los Angeles
> (check your own pages, Doug) we have a full power NCE on
> analog 28 and a LPTV on analog 27, both transmitting from
> Mount Wilson with no interference or reception problems.
>
> Scott Fybush (or was it Trip Ericson?) explained it a while
> back ...
>

Why didn't the FCC allocate adjacent channels to all DTs operating from the same site? That could conceivably open up more spectrum for the wireless companies since most stations in major markets are clustered in 1 or 2 locations.

 

[Nertz]

I think WHYY Channel 12 in Wilmington, Delaware was commercial, but it is PBS for Philadelphia now, and serves Delaware very little.

 

[Markxxx]

> Why didn't the FCC allocate adjacent channels to all DTs
> operating from the same site? That could conceivably open
> up more spectrum for the wireless companies since most
> stations in major markets are clustered in 1 or 2 locations.
>

That was my thought exactly. That is why I posed the question, how much or how hard is it to change channels.

Because we have both analog and digital operating now it would be impossible in most places to have enough vacant channels to do this.

It would be a good idea once analog goes away, but if it is very costly to change channels it would be opposed.

But it probably would be best to wipe all the assingments out and start over fresh.. Like THAT would ever happen

LOL
<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[Mark_Ericson]

> > Since many of the channel "taboos" seem to have gone away
> > with DTV, it would seem likely a lot *more* channels can
> be
> > allotted once transition is complete.
>
> The taboos went away only because of co-location of
> transmitter sites for all (or most) stations in a market. I
> would suspect that new allocations will have specific
> requirements for co-location in order to prevent those
> taboos from cropping up again.
>
> Interestingly enough, the taboos had already started to
> disappear with the advent of LPTV. Here in Los Angeles
> (check your own pages, Doug) we have a full power NCE on
> analog 28 and a LPTV on analog 27, both transmitting from
> Mount Wilson with no interference or reception problems.
>
> Scott Fybush (or was it Trip Ericson?) explained it a while
> back ...

I don't think it was me, but I have a thought anyway. I imagine that if they're colocated, the LPTV could accept interference from the full-service station without causing the full-service station any harm. I know that I, personally, have run my <1watt transmitter right next to full-service stations resulting in no interference and only a hum in the LP signal.

That's just my thoughts, take all with a massive grain of salt.

- Trip
<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>

 

[w9wi]

> Interestingly enough, the taboos had already started to
> disappear with the advent of LPTV. Here in Los Angeles
> (check your own pages, Doug) we have a full power NCE on
> analog 28 and a LPTV on analog 27, both transmitting from
> Mount Wilson with no interference or reception problems.

Oh, they were *always* a lot looser for LPTV/translators. 71/73/75/77 in Alamogordo, NM among many, many others.

The first-adjacents are indeed a relatively recent development though!