Spectrum plan could shut down TV stations, says trade group

[kickass367]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...wn_TV_stations_says_trade_group?taxonomyId=16

"The NAB's report, released Monday, assumes that the FCC would attempt to recover 120MHz of contiguous spectrum, from channels 31 to 51."

"Eleven of New York City's 23 full-power TV stations would likely go off the air under the FCC plan, the NAB report said."

 

[Bob1370]

That's basically baloney.

There is no firm plan to reclaim any spectrum below Channel 51 at this point.

However, longer term discussion at the FCC and within the industry centers about eventually re-populating the VHF band with all the stations that used to operate there, on their pre-2009 heritage channels, at higher power levels approximating or equalling their old pre-2009 visual ERP. That would push hundreds of stations back down to channels 2-13, all operating at 100 to 316 kW (or equivalent, compensating for higher antenna elevation), and squeezing remaining UHFs to the territory of channels 14-40 at 1000 kW or more. They'd all get a power level that more than overcomes any potential problems of noise and reduced coverage range we've seen at today's reduced power allocations. Many if not most of those stations that once lived on the VHF band have yet to dismantle their old VHF antennas, and they'd be wise to leave them in place--they are likely to need them again. Further, since you can now allocate adjacent channels in the same market in these digital times, on both VHF and UHF, you can compress over a thousand more stations into the channel 2-40 range at 100 to 316 kW on VHF, 1000 kW ERP on UHF, without eliminating or reducing the coverage of anyone. All you have to do is space co-channel stations at least 170 miles apart from each other and you're all set. A few hours on the FCC's computers could reposition stations where they used to be, or if not possible, put them in a good place on or below Channel 40, and clear the upper half of the band above about 600 mHz for broadband and wireless data services. That's what you're likely to see. The Canadians will have to coordinaste with this, but they'd also put all of their heritage stations back where they used to be and could probably find plenty of room for the rest.

 

[badjef]

That's basically baloney.

There is no firm plan to reclaim any spectrum below Channel 51 at this point.

However, longer term discussion at the FCC and within the industry centers about
eventually re-populating the VHF band with all the stations that used to operate there, on
their pre-2009 heritage channels, at higher power levels approximating or equalling their
old pre-2009 visual ERP. That would push hundreds of stations back down to channels
2-13, all operating at 100 to 316 kW (or equivalent, compensating for higher antenna
elevation), and squeezing remaining UHFs to the territory of channels 14-40 at 1000 kW
or more. They'd all get a power level that more than overcomes any potential problems of
noise and reduced coverage range we've seen at today's reduced power allocations. Many
if not most of those stations that once lived on the VHF band have yet to dismantle their
old VHF antennas, and they'd be wise to leave them in place--they are likely to need them
again. Further, since you can now allocate adjacent channels in the same market in these
digital times, on both VHF and UHF, you can compress over a thousand more stations
into the channel 2-40 range at 100 to 316 kW on VHF, 1000 kW ERP on UHF, without
eliminating or reducing the coverage of anyone. All you have to do is space co-channel
stations at least 170 miles apart from each other and you're all set. A few hours on the
FCC's computers could reposition stations where they used to be, or if not possible, put
them in a good place on or below Channel 40, and clear the upper half of the band above
about 600 mHz for broadband and wireless data services. That's what you're likely to see.
The Canadians will have to coordinaste with this, but they'd also put all of their heritage
stations back where they used to be and could probably find plenty of room for the rest.

Bob1370, whether or not the story is baloney, the trend is continuing to eliminate OTA
television. It will go away. It is not worth the agravation and expense. There will be no
new antenna on 1WTC, any reallocation of channels just costs the TV stations more
money. Money that is not justified by additional viewers.

The trend toward programming distribution past OTA has been continuing with cable,
satellite, internet, and this is another proposal that will not improve conditions, in fact,
worsen an already bad situation.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[Laurence Glavin]

I've heard radio ads on Boston stations threatening listeners to act now or their local TV stations could go away. Are these ads also running elsewhere?

 

[WPPCProductions]

Why. for more cell phone freqs.I cant stand those.The next step is starting to take the radio band away then all of us will be in the street without a job.Leave it up to the corruption going on lately.

 

[landtuna]

I've heard radio ads on Boston stations threatening listeners to act now or their local TV stations could go away. Are these ads also running elsewhere?

They are running now in Phoenix.

 

[badjef]

I've heard radio ads on Boston stations threatening listeners to act now or their local TV stations could go away. Are these ads also running elsewhere?

Those ads are running all over the place. The local TV stations are not going away, just the OTA signal.

Look at all the stations that ID themselves on their cable position as opposed to their Federally assigned OTA.

In fact, from New York City to L.A., to Tampa and Ft. Myers look at how many LIE about their OTA assigned channel.

WCBS-TV and WNBC have not been OTA #2 and #4 respectively since June 2009!

When was the last time or only time, you heard WNBC was OTA#28! Their slogan is "We're 4 New York." Cool play on words, but, No they are not, they are "28 New York".

This is not a cut on WNBC. It is marketing their "4" position on a cable box.

If they believed in OTA they would be promoting it. PSIP even shows up "4".

I found a lot of people in New Jersey, unable to pick up a decent signal from Empire as a result of VHF only antennas on their roofs. Those antennas were cheaper.

Years ago, "the New York 7" ruled! Anything above #13 were "those other channels."

It is the reason, most of the 2-13 wanted to go back to their 2-13 channels.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[dhett]

In fact, from New York City to L.A., to Tampa and Ft. Myers look at how many LIE about their OTA assigned channel.

Uh, no. There's no lying going on. The federal government mandated that primary full-power TV stations identify themselves to PSIP by their virtual channel number, which was their actual analog channel number. For translators, the virtual channel number can be that of the primary station. The virtual channel number has no less significance as the RF channel number. If you really want accurate identification, then you should insist that instead of channel 2 or channel 33, WCBS identify itself as 584-590 MHz.

I know of a LPTV station that broadcasts on RF channel 36 (602-608 MHz), and appears on the local dominant cable system as channel 13. It identifies itself both through PSIP and by branding as channel 7, which is the virtual and RF channel of its primary, with a "Cable 13" as an aside. So no, cable position doesn't necessarily determine branding either.

 

[Bob1370]

The bottom line is, a lot of stations are crying "wolf" because they don't want to go to the expense of moving and re-equipping themselves again.

Having said that, they will, in the end, go to that expense, and the FCC will facilitate it, for two reasons, First of all, OTA television is the easiest way for mobile devices to be fed video streams. Second, cable and satellite penetration of US homes is actually DECLINING, perhaps for economic reasons, and over 25% of all U.S. households, housing 80 million people, would be totally without video service today if it weren't for OTA television signals. You think they're going to black out one out of every four television homes in the country?

 

[Markxxx]

The real problem is the delivery mode is outdated. We don't really need local TV anymore. The big four and other networks just need repeaters. I live in Chicago and don't know about other cities, but even the news isn't local anymore. You get the same exact news stories on all major stations. There's little investigating news stories or trying to "break" a story exclusive. The only difference in coverage is in order that it's presented. So you're getting the same news and it's only the presenter that is different.

DTV is old technology. We're already years behind. The FCC needs to be thinking of yet another digital change. And this next one needs to be done so that future changes can be upgradeable with firmware from the set top boxes.

I lost all my TV when we went digital, the signals can't penetrate through the dense buildings in my area of Chicago without a big outside antenna. Something city people can't always have. I don't really miss it all that much.

The spectrum is not only wanted by cell phones, but by railroad companies, who use it for safety, by hospitals, by manufacturers, by GPS systems for various companies. There are hundreds of uses for it. And UHF is the best place for it.

This isn't new. Look at VHF the "place to be" for TV until digital. The VHF portion after channel 13 was taken from TV in the 40s and given to the military who refused to give it back. Think for a minute how differently TV would've developed if those additional VHF stations were allocated to TV (we would've had channels 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18) all on VHF as well. This would've leveled the playing field in dozens of markets and opened up much more competition.

It's really time to revamp TV as a whole, from the spectrum to the way it's delivered through locals.

And yes some people will lose TV, but so what? I lost TV for over two years now. If I want to watch something I have to either go to my library with a laptop or torrent it, (Which is illegal and I can't do it now anyway 'cause of ISP caps). But you know what, I get along without it fine. And no one is crying for me. So some people will just have to lose out, but that's progress.

 

[KeithE4]

The spectrum is not only wanted by cell phones, but by railroad companies, who use it for safety, by hospitals, by manufacturers, by GPS systems for various companies. There are hundreds of uses for it. And UHF is the best place for it.

Go look at section 2.106 of the FCC regs and tell me where additional frequencies for consumer phone & internet services would go other than on unused UHF TV channels. Between the gummint, satellites, space research, radiolocation, existing phone services, public safety, and the like - most of which probably can't be touched - there is little room left anywhere in the UHF and microwave bands.

 

[flashback]

mark, i hardly call it progress when less people have access to the medium.

 

[badjef]

In fact, from New York City to L.A., to Tampa and Ft. Myers look at how many LIE
about their OTA assigned channel.

Uh, no. There's no lying going on. The federal government mandated that primary
full-power TV stations identify themselves to PSIP by their virtual channel number,
which was their actual analog channel number. For translators, the virtual channel
number can be that of the primary station. The virtual channel number has no less
significance as the RF channel number. If you really want accurate identification, then
you should insist that instead of channel 2 or channel 33, WCBS identify itself as
584-590 MHz.

I know of a LPTV station that broadcasts on RF channel 36 (602-608 MHz), and appears
on the local dominant cable system as channel 13. It identifies itself both through PSIP
and by branding as channel 7, which is the virtual and RF channel of its primary, with a
"Cable 13" as an aside. So no, cable position doesn't necessarily determine branding
either.

We are in a digital world, now. Except for low powered licensed stations, analogue
doesn’t exist but we still have the basis of digital written by the analogue citizens.

Well, under the analogue umbrella, the spectrum assignments had approved number
designation to the allocation. That still exists in the digital world.

Just as FM assignment. But you don’t hear FM at 105.9 being called Channel 295”. They
could, but no radio displays have that, so it doesn’t confuse the listener. It is for the ease
of FCC paperwork.

PSIP saying “2” when WCBS is not 54-60Mhz, is wrong. If they are licensed to broadcast
602-608Mhz, then they are “36”. Let them rename 602-608Mhz “2”.

As I say that, I want to make it clear that I understand the only thing they have to do is
once an hour indicate “WCBS-TV, New York”. And that will be unnecessary when OTA
is shut down for the final time as that legal ID is for licensed OTA transmitters only. (An
argument I have had numerous times on this board.)

I am not saying it is illegal. “2” is not true in the OTA world. Unfortunate as lie is not
illegal.

The word “virtual” means it is being made up. It does not exist. It is make believe.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[KeithE4]

PSIP saying “2” when WCBS is not 54-60Mhz, is wrong. If they are licensed to broadcast 602-608Mhz, then they are “36”. Let them rename 602-608Mhz “2”.

Think of PSIP as a "preset assignment" that is sent to the TV by the station, and your "Channel 2" as Preset #2.

15 million folks in the NYC market know WCBS-TV as Channel 2, not Channel 33 (its actual RF channel). WCBS-TV may transmit on Channel 33, but why kill 70 years of brand identification when a simple software routine can assign it to Preset (or Channel) 2 on your TV, where you will be able to find it? It costs the consumer nothing and makes life easier for us.

I'm sure NBC squawked when they had to move WNBT from pre-war Channel 1 (50-56 MHz, now a ham band and part of the post-war Channel 2) to Channel 4 after the war, but there was no PSIP in 1946. If there had been, they'd probably be known as WNBC Channel 1 to this day, even though they moved their transmit channel from 50-56 to 66-72 to 554-560 MHz over the years.

BTW, WCBS-TV had to move from the prewar Channel 2 (60-66 MHz, today's Ch. 3) to the post-war Channel 2 (54-60 MHz) at the same time, and everybody that had a TV had to have their tuners modified accordingly. PSIP would have made life a whole lot easier for both stations. ;D

Channel numbers were arbitrarily assigned by the FCC anyway, and changed a few times between 1937 and 1946.

BTW, on some TVs (including mine) stations are accessible both ways. If I want to watch KTVK, I can either punch up "24" (its RF channel number) or "3.1" on my remote. Selecting the RF channel number will get you the "x.1" virtual channel.

 

[tripinva]

I am not saying it is illegal. “2” is not true in the OTA world. Unfortunate as lie is not
illegal.

The word “virtual” means it is being made up. It does not exist. It is make believe.

Well, I hope you don't have cable. They use virtual channels all the time. If you have cable, do you ever call and complain to the cable company that what you see as 2 on the cable box is actually 113-52 and that they should stop lying? Or satellite, perhaps instead of channel 101, they should instead call it 119W 12083L Program 12, or whatever the correct designation is. I'm sure customers will figure out how to enter that on their remote no sweat. Otherwise, it's lying, as you insist.

- Trip

 

[W2JUV_AL]

Second, cable and satellite penetration of US homes is actually DECLINING, perhaps for economic reasons, and over 25% of all U.S. households, housing 80 million people, would be totally without video service today if it weren't for OTA television signals. You think they're going to black out one out of every four television homes in the country?

Don't know the source of your info, but Nielsen says cable penetration is 60% and the combination of satellite and FIOS account for another 30% penetration of US TV households.

 

[flashback]

Second, cable and satellite penetration of US homes is actually DECLINING, perhaps for economic reasons, and over 25% of all U.S. households, housing 80 million people, would be totally without video service today if it weren't for OTA television signals. You think they're going to black out one out of every four television homes in the country?

Don't know the source of your info, but Nielsen says cable penetration is 60% and the combination of satellite and FIOS account for another 30% penetration of US TV households.

and thats probally the reason that DTV problems have not caused enough of an uproar .because the bulk of the viewers in america because they have satalite and cable don`t notice the problems.

if there was not so many households with cable and satalite and most used over the air tv the complaints would be deafing,

 

[DTV-Chief]

Second, cable and satellite penetration of US homes is actually DECLINING, perhaps for economic reasons, and over 25% of all U.S. households, housing 80 million people, would be totally without video service today if it weren't for OTA television signals. You think they're going to black out one out of every four television homes in the country?

Don't know the source of your info, but Nielsen says cable penetration is 60% and the combination of satellite and FIOS account for another 30% penetration of US TV households.

and thats probally the reason that DTV problems have not caused enough of an uproar .because the bulk of the viewers in america because they have satalite and cable don`t notice the problems.

if there was not so many households with cable and satalite and most used over the air tv the complaints would be deafing,

It is true that a large percentage of TV households receive their local TV channels over cable or satellite. Remember when every cable and satellite provider originally got their signal over the air from the TV station's transmitter? Gradually TV stations have migrated to fiber or direct connections to nearby cable company or satellite collection facilities. That's fairly easy to do in a compact geographic area, but not everywhere. Today you will still find a large percentage of cable companies and satellite providers will lose a local TV station when their transmitter goes down. For example, our TV station serves 349,000 households but loses 141,000 or 41% when the transmitter is off the air.

 

[badjef]

PSIP saying “2” when WCBS is not 54-60Mhz, is wrong. If they are licensed to broadcast
602-608Mhz, then they are “36”. Let them rename 602-608Mhz “2”.

Think of PSIP as a "preset assignment" that is sent to the TV by the station, and your
"Channel 2" as Preset #2.

15 million folks in the NYC market know WCBS-TV as Channel 2, not Channel 33 (its
actual RF channel). WCBS-TV may transmit on Channel 33, but why kill 70 years of
brand identification when a simple software routine can assign it to Preset (or Channel) 2
on your TV, where you will be able to find it? It costs the consumer nothing and makes
life easier for us.

I'm sure NBC squawked when they had to move WNBT from pre-war Channel 1 (50-56
MHz, now a ham band and part of the post-war Channel 2) to Channel 4 after the war, but
there was no PSIP in 1946. If there had been, they'd probably be known as WNBC
Channel 1 to this day, even though they moved their transmit channel from 50-56 to
66-72 to 554-560 MHz over the years.

BTW, WCBS-TV had to move from the prewar Channel 2 (60-66 MHz, today's Ch. 3) to
the post-war Channel 2 (54-60 MHz) at the same time, and everybody that had a TV had
to have their tuners modified accordingly. PSIP would have made life a whole lot easier
for both stations. ;D

Channel numbers were arbitrarily assigned by the FCC anyway, and changed a few times
between 1937 and 1946.

BTW, on some TVs (including mine) stations are accessible both ways. If I want to
watch KTVK, I can either punch up "24" (its RF channel number) or "3.1" on my remote.
Selecting the RF channel number will get you the "x.1" virtual channel.

First, Today’s WNBC moved from #1 to #4, as they are known to that day, but there is
not a snowballs chance they would have continued to call themselves Channel 1, a
number that did not exist. Waaaaay too confusing to the viewer and his new moving
picture box in the living room., especially when it was not yet 24 hours!

Analogue cable boxes did indeed use the FCC OTA numbering for 2-13. The cable
companies have always been ahead of the FCC. The FCC said we don’t care what you do
inside the cable as long as there is no disruption to OTA sevices, Public Safety, Aircraft,
etc. It is why there are blank numbers on cable boxes.

Second, there is nothing saying they have to call themselves anything. WINK-TV, Ft.
Myers does not use a number. This came as a result of the cable companies having
co-channel on their #11 position, so they moved it to #5. They called themselves
“Channel 11, Cable 5” until they dropped it completely. They are not calling themselves
(digital)#9 at all. (My OTA reception of them is iffy at best. anologue#11 was a killer signal
even with rabbits)
I understand with cable digital it is going to be different in that digital world. But that
doesn’t count in this argument because the TV station is not FCC licensed through the
cable. ONLY OTA! All you guys act as though OTA is following cable, FiOS, Dish,
Direct, internet, Mom&Pop, SMATV, and anything else you can think of.
Apple and Oranges! The ID: whether that be, WNBC, New York, WINK-TV, Fort Myers,
KYW-TV, Philadelphia, etc., etc., etc., is for the OTA - “Over The Air” transmitter. That
is the discussion. When OTA no longer exists in reality (realville, for those in Rio Linda),
then I don’t care what the station wants to call them. Until the FCC mandate the OTA
turn off , which will happen, the lies continue.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[WPPCProductions]

I can see this happen to radio soon.Hello to full time Iboc,DAB or Sirius/XM radio.The way the big corps lobby down in Washington like the corrupted cable co's.radio will be sining a shotty digital tune like crappy dtv is doing now.Yes I'm for progress.but like said before.Dont dictate it to the public like what happen with dtv.Again dtv is not perfected in my book.I cant even tune in to a local station thats only 15 miles from my house.How sad this is.Now the corrupt cable company is going al digital and now have to need a box on ever tv in the house,Corrupted as I see it.they will make more money to lined the fat pocket of our friends down in the big city.Sorry to be blunt about this ,but that how I feel about this whole thing.