The old analogue TV channels and local radio

[louiemanno]

Thank you in advance for allowing me to think out loud …and then transcribe my out loud thinking to my keyboard…

I have noticed the heavily multi-tiered and blatantly pervasive ad campaign to remind folks that TV is going all digital as of February 2009. The funny thing is that this huge “pull out all of the stops” digital switch over campaign is aimed at (if I remember correctly) about the 12% of people who still watch TV with rabbit ears… But amid the frenzy of this public information campaign from America’s Broadcasters…no on is telling us what they are going to do with the old analogue TV channels …or as they say in the biz “spectrum”?

I know many large corporations bid big money on the channels. But what are they going to broadcast?

Here’s my half-baked theory:

Our old TV frequencies are going deliver wireless broadband. That means wireless broadband would have the same saturation that TV now has… If that happens… all bets are off. Everything in the world will be available in some little electronic box in your pocket…

Local radio really has got to get into that little box.

Just wondering…

Louie

 

[oldrover]

IIRC... analog TV video is delivered via an AM signal, and analog TV audio is delivered via an FM signal.

Or... not. I'm sure a tech type will be 'round to correct me. ;D

 

[nhradiochild]

IIRC... analog TV video is delivered via an AM signal, and analog TV audio is delivered via an FM signal.

Or... not. I'm sure a tech type will be 'round to correct me. ;D

I'm pretty sure you're right, rover.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The funny thing is that this huge “pull out all of the stops” digital switch over campaign is aimed at (if I remember correctly) about the 12% of people who still watch TV with rabbit ears…

More like 36%.

But amid the frenzy of this public information campaign from America’s Broadcasters…no on is telling us what they are going to do with the old analogue TV channels …or as they say in the biz “spectrum”?

First, the TV channels 2-51 are remaining exactly where they are. There's no difference between analog and digital channels. Each channel still designates a 6-MHz-wide band of spectrum. (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/dtv/tvchfreq.html) After 2/17/09, TV channels 52-69 will be reallocated to other uses and other users.

Proposals have been made to take all existing AM stations and put them in the portion of the spectrum now occupied by TV channels 2-6. Problem is: Many TV broadcasters are NOT willing to give up their low channel numbers and will be moving their digital-TV transmitters to channels 2-6 on 2/17/09. In addition, there are several thousand LPTV operations still using the low-VHF band, which are not yet required to either move off of those channels or implement digital TV. There's a list somewhere (can't find it at the moment) of which stations will be using which channels post-transition.

The theory is that almost every full-service TV station is now using two channels, and after 2/17/09 will have to return one of those channels to the FCC. However, no spectrum is being freed except for channels 52-69, which are already spoken for.

Our old TV frequencies are going deliver wireless broadband. That means wireless broadband would have the same saturation that TV now has… If that happens… all bets are off. Everything in the world will be available in some little electronic box in your pocket…

IIRC the vacated channels 52-69 are already reallocated to public service use, not broadband Internet.

 

[louiemanno]

I did say my theory was half baked… Than you for the thorough answer to my question.

 

[robbbc]

I did say my theory was half baked… Than you for the thorough answer to my question.

I wouldn't say your theory is half baked but I think Dumber may have overstated a couple things.

Very few full power stations will be remaining on the low VHF tier (2-6). There is something where you will tune to channel 3, let's say, and you will actually be watching TV transmitted over channel 40- kind of a new trick and you only think you are watching channel "3".

But, there are a few holdouts who are slowing down progress by not giving up their low VHF allocation and the FCC has been unwilling to enforce its own guidance- a new administration next year may end all that. There are also issues that 2-6 will not work well with a digital signal which has been explained to me, but I didn't quite grasp. Stations choosing to stay on 2-6 are their own worst enemies. Probably one of the reasons the FCC thought all the VHF frequencies should have been removed at first. Thus, technological forces may push low VHFs to move back to their UHF allocation out of necessity. Not to mention that most new antennas will be UHF and high VHF only. People may just choose a competitor station which is able to be picked up more easily.

I thought the 36% number is people who have at least one TV that needs an antenna (A TV in the bedroom, garage, basement- maybe just a portable to take to the beach- people who have satellite TV sometimes use ears to avoid paying the monthly 6 bucks for local channels.) Just because one has cable/Sat doesn't mean they don't occaisionally watch OTA TV. My guess its that people will not be investing in converter boxes for these older analog units and there will be a small (20" and less) DTV (not HDTV) boom in the next couple of years.

As for LPTV, I was shocked to read from Dumber about how many low VHF channels of this crud are out there! It would be pretty easy for the FCC to regulate these guys in a decade or so, at least to get out of low VHF land. I believe that you are definitely right that these low VHF channels do look like they are on their way out sooner or later- it will just take a new FCC or technological impediments to broadcasters to make it happen. I can't foresee how LPTV and a few Luddite full-power stations can hold onto spectrum the size of 2-6 indefinitely. Think about it, we can't use channel 4 because 3 full power broadcaster in the nation refused to move. In most of the country 4 will be nothing more than an empty useless bandwith (nothing but static in Analog terms) all to cater to a broadcaster in North Dakota? I can't imagine that going on for long.

Maybe Dumber knows the answer but my understanding is that AT&T and Sprint (or Verizon?) got some of the higher spectrum. I didn't think it went all public.

 

[robbbc]

I also forgot one other thing. In between every VHF station there is 6 MHz of empty space. Some of this may end up in the market as well. One of the original HDTV notions was that each station would be 12 MHz (2 UHF stations worth) based on the Japanese analog HDTV standard and these stations would use that space.

 

[KML0224]

And to think that being on a low VHF channel was so important for how many years? That probably helped WFSB-TV (CBS) channel 3 of Hartford this whole time! That plus the bonus coverage they havd to Springfield, MA as their defacto CBS affiliate until the "CBS 3" cable thing came along (which they own, so no losss for them).

Getting this back to Northern New England...did WCSH-TV (NBC) channel 6 of Portland really have that many people listening to their audio in the car, with people on their way home from work, listening to their newscasts, etc. ?

 

[w9wi]

But, there are a few holdouts who are slowing down progress by not giving up their low VHF allocation and the FCC has been unwilling to enforce its own guidance- a new administration next year may end all that. There are also issues that 2-6 will not work well with a digital signal which has been explained to me, but I didn't quite grasp. Stations choosing to stay on 2-6 are their own worst enemies. Probably one of the reasons the FCC thought all the VHF frequencies should have been removed at first. Thus, technological forces may push low VHFs to move back to their UHF allocation out of necessity. Not to mention that most new antennas will be UHF and high VHF only. People may just choose a competitor station which is able to be picked up more easily.

The primary issues with channels 2-6 for digital seem to be antenna size and man-made noise. (computers, leaky power line insulators, etc.)

The primary advantage is the ability to deliver a strong signal over a large area with relatively low power.

(I wonder if some stations plan to use 2-6 solely to establish a theoretical must-carry signal at the cable headends, and then use satellite, fiber, or translators to actually reach the cable systems?)

I thought the 36% number is people who have at least one TV that needs an antenna (A TV in the bedroom, garage, basement- maybe just a portable to take to the beach- people who have satellite TV sometimes use ears to avoid paying the monthly 6 bucks for local channels.)

The figure varies wildly from market to market, with nearly 25% of homes in some markets not having cable or satellite on *any* of their TVs, while in other markets the figure is closer to 5%.

As you suggest, when you count 2nd, 3rd, and 4th TVs in the same home, the chances of at least one TV relying on OTA are a lot greater.

As for LPTV, I was shocked to read from Dumber about how many low VHF channels of this crud are out there! It would be pretty easy for the FCC to regulate these guys in a decade or so, at least to get out of low VHF land.

I would suggest that as the deletion of channels 52-69 has compressed the band, it has become a lot harder to move VHF LPTVs out of 2-6. There's nowhere to put them.

Think about it, we can't use channel 4 because 3 full power broadcaster in the nation refused to move. In most of the country 4 will be nothing more than an empty useless bandwith (nothing but static in Analog terms) all to cater to a broadcaster in North Dakota?

There are 636 LPTVs in channels 2-6, including 69 that have already converted to digital service. (14 of them on channel 4)

Maybe Dumber knows the answer but my understanding is that AT&T and Sprint (or Verizon?) got some of the higher spectrum. I didn't think it went all public.

Four channels' worth went to public-service. (they actually redivided the spectrum, they're getting 6MHz blocks but the blocks don't line up with the old channels)

Channel 55 is Verizon's V-Cast. (I think I read somewhere they're getting channel 56 as well)

_________________________________________________

• Who else would wantchannels 2-6? The antennas are too big for practical use on handheld portable devices, there's too much noise & interference. Expansion of the FM band would be an interesting application (and I can see authorizing FM in the band on a secondary basis to DTV) though it would take a LONG time for enough receivers to be distributed to make it viable.
• How would we get the currently-authorized TV stations out of that band? We'd have to reassign channels to dozens of stations. Not all of them stations currently in 2-6. Chances are, there are no interference-free channel assignments for some of these stations - we'd have to reassign someone else a few markets away to open up a space - in many cases it would cascade on for miles. And then, what about the equipment that would be obsoleted? One of my local stations has already built a DTV facility on channel 5. Deleting 2-6 would leave them with a few hundred thousand dollars worth of useless transmitter and antenna components.

 

[louiemanno]

Thanks to all of you well-informed broadcasters for your take on the digital switch over… My original question arises out of the unabashed gusto in which the analog to digital switch over is being promoted… It could be that the TV outlets simply want to make sure that not a single viewer is left out in the empty analogue wasteland. But these constant announcements and the fact that there are rebate coupons available for converter boxes- makes me suspicious that something bigger is afoot.

All logic and technical know-how aside… When I engage in armchair cultural and technical prognosticating… broadband seems to be a hot contender for a use of these old channels. And I believe that I heard through osmoses the companies like yahoo and google are bidding on this spectrum.

Broadband can deliver everything and make traditional radio, TV, and cell service obsolete. If I am even close to correct… It seems to me that who ever controls this spectrum is going to have a huge amount of power. If broadband were available in every nook and cranny it really would change everything.

Either way these are some interesting times we are living in… And while I watch everything change… I just can’t help but ask a few questions.

Louie

 

[louiemanno]

After my last posting just for fun I did a search on the question and here is a couple of paragraphs excerpted from a the lockergnome blog where they have been discussing this issue:

The FCC’s engineering analysis, released two weeks ago, confirms what we have stated all along: it is technologically feasible to provide Internet access through this segment of spectrum without interfering with either digital television signals or wireless microphones. While one of the prototypes unfortunately was damaged, the other prototype fully demonstrated the promise of using these “white spaces” for Internet access.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has expressed a keen interest in keeping this matter moving forward, and the coalition will be working with FCC staff to address any remaining technical issues. As the Washington Post notes today, the promise that this spectrum holds for bringing the Internet to more Americans is too great to ignore.To see the article in full context go to:
http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2007/09/13/internet-access-via-old-tv-analog-channels/

Looks like it can be broadband... and if it can be… it will be. Where does the leave everything else?
Louie Manno

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Very few full power stations will be remaining on the low VHF tier (2-6). There is something where you will tune to channel 3, let's say, and you will actually be watching TV transmitted over channel 40- kind of a new trick and you only think you are watching channel "3".

The channel number the TV station wants to viewer to associate them with is transmitted as part of the data stream. As far as the viewer is concerned, the actual channel number is irrelevant. So, WCAX-DT (now on channel 53, moving to channel 22 post-transition) can still show the viewer that it's on channel "3" and it won't matter to the viewer that it's not really there.

BTW, I found the final Report and Order, listing the current analog (designated in the R&O as NTSC) and digital channel assignments and the final digital channel assignments after 2/17/09: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-138A1.pdf The document is 131 pages long, and the channel listings are in appendices D1 through D7.

There are also issues that 2-6 will not work well with a digital signal which has been explained to me, but I didn't quite grasp.

As explained to me, a radio engineer, by a TV engineer, low-band VHF DTV transmitters are wildly inefficient and generate tons of waste heat. Reception in that band (54-88 MHz) is also hampered by occasional skip and ducting, which affects high-band VHF much less, and UHF virtually not at all.

As for LPTV, I was shocked to read from Dumber about how many low VHF channels of this crud are out there! It would be pretty easy for the FCC to regulate these guys in a decade or so, at least to get out of low VHF land. I believe that you are definitely right that these low VHF channels do look like they are on their way out sooner or later- it will just take a new FCC or technological impediments to broadcasters to make it happen. I can't foresee how LPTV and a few Luddite full-power stations can hold onto spectrum the size of 2-6 indefinitely. Think about it, we can't use channel 4 because 3 full power broadcaster in the nation refused to move. In most of the country 4 will be nothing more than an empty useless bandwith (nothing but static in Analog terms) all to cater to a broadcaster in North Dakota? I can't imagine that going on for long.

IIRC regulations for required DTV transitions for LPTV and cable are a few years in the future. However, according to the Report and Order, there will be (by my count) 14 DTV stations in the low-VHF band.