• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Stupidity at ABC--Someone's Gone Mad! WPVI Elected 6!

M

Mark_Ericson

Guest
According to the FCC's website, WPVI amended their channel election, which had been to move to round two and select a UHF channel, and has instead opted to go to channel 6 after the transition. What madness is present at ABC?

- 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>
 
> According to the FCC's website, WPVI amended their channel
> election, which had been to move to round two and select a
> UHF channel, and has instead opted to go to channel 6 after
> the transition. What madness is present at ABC?
>
> - Trip
>
Can someone translate this to english for people like me please?
 
> > According to the FCC's website, WPVI amended their channel
>
> > election, which had been to move to round two and select a
>
> > UHF channel, and has instead opted to go to channel 6
> after
> > the transition. What madness is present at ABC?
> >
> > - Trip
> >
> Can someone translate this to english for people like me
> please?
>
Channel 6 is low VHF. This is not ideal for digital broadcasting as it's subject to interference.

UHF and High VHF (7-13) is better for digital broadcasting. I'm not aware of the other Philly stations assignments but if all the rest choose UHF it helps as people getting OTA reception will only have to buy a UHF antenna. If they have to buy a VHF antenna too, they may forgo this and just not watch channel 6.<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> UHF and High VHF (7-13) is better for digital broadcasting.
> I'm not aware of the other Philly stations assignments but
> if all the rest choose UHF it helps as people getting OTA
> reception will only have to buy a UHF antenna. If they have
> to buy a VHF antenna too, they may forgo this and just not
> watch channel 6.

That is correct. My apologies for not clarifying this when I first posted.

Low-VHF digitals are subject to requiring HUGE VHF antennas, and are subject to e-skip, impulse noise, and electrical noise. I have a low-VHF digital, and out of 100 times trying to watch it, it's been watchable with breakups 4 times. It's been watchable without breakups once. Meanwhile, all the UHF digitals from the same location are always clean.

- 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>
 
> > UHF and High VHF (7-13) is better for digital
> broadcasting.
> > I'm not aware of the other Philly stations assignments but
>
> > if all the rest choose UHF it helps as people getting OTA
> > reception will only have to buy a UHF antenna. If they
> have
> > to buy a VHF antenna too, they may forgo this and just not
>
> > watch channel 6.
>
> That is correct. My apologies for not clarifying this when
> I first posted.
>
> Low-VHF digitals are subject to requiring HUGE VHF antennas,
> and are subject to e-skip, impulse noise, and electrical
> noise. I have a low-VHF digital, and out of 100 times
> trying to watch it, it's been watchable with breakups 4
> times. It's been watchable without breakups once.
> Meanwhile, all the UHF digitals from the same location are
> always clean.
>
> - Trip
>
But with cable and sattelite presentation at what, 70-80%, is there a trade off that they see as being worth that risk in the end? If they're still 6 ABC, and everyone else is busy becoming something else, it builds on their "stability" legacy.
 
I wasn't aware they could choose the same digital channel as their VHF channel. What happens when more and more get digital? Could it be their downfall? I really doubt it though.

> But with cable and sattelite presentation at what, 70-80%,
> is there a trade off that they see as being worth that risk
> in the end? If they're still 6 ABC, and everyone else is
> busy becoming something else, it builds on their "stability"
> legacy.
>
 
> But with cable and sattelite presentation at what, 70-80%,
> is there a trade off that they see as being worth that risk
> in the end? If they're still 6 ABC, and everyone else is
> busy becoming something else, it builds on their "stability"
> legacy.

I don't think it's worth the risk. It requires an investment in a low-VHF antenna for anyone more than say 10 miles from the transmitter, plus even then it's extremely susceptable to e-skip and electrical noise. And staying on channel 6 does nothing for them--KYW will be staying on channel 26 but can remap to 3-1 for as long as they want.

- 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>
 
> I wasn't aware they could choose the same digital channel as
> their VHF channel. What happens when more and more get
> digital? Could it be their downfall? I really doubt it
> though.

Some can, some can't. It varies on a market-by-market basis. As has been stated in the previous responses, low-VHF is not a desirable position. This is the first time I've heard of a station opting for it-though in the case of WPVI-they were already hosed by getting stuck in the 51-69 band for the original (DT-64).

WCAU, last I heard, opted to go back to channel 10 for digital (the current assignment is ch. 67). WBPH channel 60, a religious station in the Philly market, will opt to stay with it's digital assignment-channel 9, causing a problem for nearby WWOR-TV in the New York DMA. WWOR can elect to stay on channel 9, but it will mean a severe signal reduction to prevent interference with WBPH-DT.
 
> WBPH channel 60, a religious station in the Philly market, will opt to stay
> with it's digital assignment-channel 9, causing a problem
> for nearby WWOR-TV in the New York DMA. WWOR can elect to
> stay on channel 9, but it will mean a severe signal
> reduction to prevent interference with WBPH-DT.

I think Rupert would most likey get the spam channel's assignment changed.<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>
 
> WCAU, last I heard, opted to go back to channel 10 for
> digital (the current assignment is ch. 67). WBPH channel 60,
> a religious station in the Philly market, will opt to stay
> with it's digital assignment-channel 9, causing a problem
> for nearby WWOR-TV in the New York DMA. WWOR can elect to
> stay on channel 9, but it will mean a severe signal
> reduction to prevent interference with WBPH-DT.

Neither WCAU nor WWOR are getting their analogs back for digital transmission. WABC might not be getting it either.

Stations had the option to go for either their current or their analog if both were in core, or could choose either their in-core or to go to Round Two. If neither was in-core, they could go on to Round Two. Any station could work together with other broadcasters for an NCA (Negotiated Channel Arrangement) during Round One to change channels.

WWOR had chosen 9, but due to interference issues with as many as four different stations (not just WBPH-DT, but also WNJB-DT, WEDN-DT, and possibly WTNH-DT), reverted to 38.

WABC has asked the FCC to waive one of their adjacent-channel rules as WNJB-DT refuses to allow WABC-DT next to them. If it fails (and it should IMO), WABC will revert to 45.

WCAU had chosen 10 but faced issues with WBPH-DT and WHTM-DT. WCAU had arranged an NCA which WPVI objected to (before choosing 6) and had thrown out, that moved WYBE to 35 and but WCAU on 34. It's my guess that WCAU will elect 35 in Round Two.

WPVI is insane for doing so, seeing as low-VHF (2-6) is horrible.

- 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>
 
> > WCAU, last I heard, opted to go back to channel 10 for
> > digital (the current assignment is ch. 67). WBPH channel
> 60,
> > a religious station in the Philly market, will opt to stay
>
> > with it's digital assignment-channel 9, causing a problem
> > for nearby WWOR-TV in the New York DMA. WWOR can elect to
> > stay on channel 9, but it will mean a severe signal
> > reduction to prevent interference with WBPH-DT.
>
> Neither WCAU nor WWOR are getting their analogs back for
> digital transmission. WABC might not be getting it either.
>
> Stations had the option to go for either their current or
> their analog if both were in core, or could choose either
> their in-core or to go to Round Two. If neither was
> in-core, they could go on to Round Two. Any station could
> work together with other broadcasters for an NCA (Negotiated
> Channel Arrangement) during Round One to change channels.
>
> WWOR had chosen 9, but due to interference issues with as
> many as four different stations (not just WBPH-DT, but also
> WNJB-DT, WEDN-DT, and possibly WTNH-DT), reverted to 38.
>
> WABC has asked the FCC to waive one of their
> adjacent-channel rules as WNJB-DT refuses to allow WABC-DT
> next to them. If it fails (and it should IMO), WABC will
> revert to 45.
>
At first glance, WPVI's election of 6 and WABC's fight to keep 7 seem to stem from an obsessive desire by ABC corporate to minimize operating costs regardless of the havoc wrought upon the stations' respective digital operations. However, KFSN, the ABC O&O in Fresno, is passing up the cost savings that would likely come from keeping its digital signal on Channel 9 and will instead use its current analog Channel 30 for post-transition digital transmission. Apparently, insanity about DTV channel choices is an epidemic at ABC.

> WCAU had chosen 10 but faced issues with WBPH-DT and
> WHTM-DT. WCAU had arranged an NCA which WPVI objected to
> (before choosing 6) and had thrown out, that moved WYBE to
> 35 and but WCAU on 34. It's my guess that WCAU will elect
> 35 in Round Two.
>
If I'm WCAU or even WYBE, I'd be shouting a loud "I told you so!" at the FCC. Here was WPVI spending so much time, money, and brainpower to crow about how a WCAU/WYBE NCA would constrain WPVI's Round Two channel choices too much, and at the last minute, WPVI makes all of that effort pointless!

> WPVI is insane for doing so, seeing as low-VHF (2-6) is
> horrible.
>
> - Trip
>
Not only is WPVI insane, but so is the federal government for its deeply flawed choice of a DTV channel core. What Congress and/or FCC should do -- but are probably too dumb to do -- is open up Channel 37 for DTV and move radio astronomy to one of the out-of-core UHF channels and either:

A. Put channels 52-56 into the DTV core, which would limit wireless telecom companies' auction choices but probably drive up bids for the remaining out-of-core spectrum, and abolish channels 2-6; or

B. Move 2-6 to the 144-174 MHz band, with the various "public-service-band" services currently on that band, including NOAA weather radio stations, in turn shifting to the 54-72 and 76-88 MHz bands. The 4 MHz gap between channels 4 and 5 would become history, as would the 86 MHz separation between 6 and 7.

If WPVI and other ABC O&Os keep making insane decisions about their digital channels in this alternate set-up, at least the insanity wouldn't be so damaging.<P ID="signature">______________
This is AirwaveSurfer, reminding you that portions of this post have been prerecorded.</P>
 
> At first glance, WPVI's election of 6 and WABC's fight to
> keep 7 seem to stem from an obsessive desire by ABC
> corporate to minimize operating costs regardless of the
> havoc wrought upon the stations' respective digital
> operations. However, KFSN, the ABC O&O in Fresno, is
> passing up the cost savings that would likely come from
> keeping its digital signal on Channel 9 and will instead use
> its current analog Channel 30 for post-transition digital
> transmission. Apparently, insanity about DTV channel
> choices is an epidemic at ABC.

I think all of these have to do with interference concerns. WABC-DT and WEDH-DT will both be on channel 45 after the transition if WABC doesn't get their way, meaning it will be hard to watch either one in places where they overlap.

KFSN might be the same way, though I honestly couldn't tell you which stations it would be protected from (KERO-DT? KXTV?).

This WPVI-6 election is just NUTS.

> If I'm WCAU or even WYBE, I'd be shouting a loud "I told you
> so!" at the FCC. Here was WPVI spending so much time,
> money, and brainpower to crow about how a WCAU/WYBE NCA
> would constrain WPVI's Round Two channel choices too much,
> and at the last minute, WPVI makes all of that effort
> pointless!

I agree.

> Not only is WPVI insane, but so is the federal government
> for its deeply flawed choice of a DTV channel core. What
> Congress and/or FCC should do -- but are probably too dumb
> to do -- is open up Channel 37 for DTV and move radio
> astronomy to one of the out-of-core UHF channels and either:

You can't move it off of channel 37. The reason channel 37 is used is because the frequency at which hydrogen resonates is in the channel 37 spectrum, or something like this.

> A. Put channels 52-56 into the DTV core, which would limit
> wireless telecom companies' auction choices but probably
> drive up bids for the remaining out-of-core spectrum, and
> abolish channels 2-6; or
>
> B. Move 2-6 to the 144-174 MHz band, with the various
> "public-service-band" services currently on that band,
> including NOAA weather radio stations, in turn shifting to
> the 54-72 and 76-88 MHz bands. The 4 MHz gap between
> channels 4 and 5 would become history, as would the 86 MHz
> separation between 6 and 7.

Either one of these is problematic. First of all, I seem to recall at the very least 55 and 56 having already been auctioned. However, I am still for the allocation of channel 52 back to digital broadcasting, just to balance out the uselessness of channel 37.

Really, they could just as easily do away with 2-6 and it wouldn't harm anything at this point. Once, when I was very bored, I tried to plot all the current TV stations using solely channels 14-51. I couldn't do it. I moved all the state-wide networked PBS stations to 7-13. Still couldn't do it. I was short by one channel number.

- 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>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom