TV Station Channel Brands After DTV Conversion?

[landtuna]

Wow! I never thought such a simple question would take so many directions.

Personally, I think stations should be required to use their real broadcast channel for identification. Yes, the initial confusion might be huge but would not last long. Something akin to changing a telephone number.

No, no, and no. Here's why.

Radio stations change dial positions all the time and they brand their frequencies. People don't seem to have a problem following an FM-to-FM move or even an AM-to-FM. Are you telling me TV viewers are not as intelligent as radio listeners?

Of course, radio people don't wear those expensive channel brand lapel pins so maybe it is a cost consideration after all.

 

[fybush]

Radio stations change dial positions all the time and they brand their frequencies. People don't seem to have a problem following an FM-to-FM move or even an AM-to-FM. Are you telling me TV viewers are not as intelligent as radio listeners?

And the last time every radio station in a market changed frequency at the same time was....???

(There is a correct answer to this question - let's see if anyone besides W9WI gets it...)

 

[tripinva]

The 1940's? When FM moved from 44-50 MHz up to 88-106 MHz?

- Trip

 

[fybush]

The 1940's? When FM moved from 44-50 MHz up to 88-106 MHz?

- Trip

Right decade, but that's not the move I was thinking of. FM receiver penetration was very low at that point - maybe 10-15% in the very best FM markets - so the move "upstairs" didn't affect very many listeners. It was more a curiosity than anything else.

Additionally, FM stations had already gone through several iterations of branding in just their first decade, none of them closely linked to their transmitting frequency. Here in Rochester, for instance, W8XVB (experimental at 42.8 mc) became W51R (commercial at 45.1 mc) became WHFM (commercial at 45.1 mc), so by the time WHFM migrated up to 98.9 (or "channel 255," as it was branded on many of the radios of the era), it was just one more in a series of ongoing changes.

 

[kenglish]

I think that changing the stations' "brand" would be just as confusing as McDonalds offering a "Whopper", and Burger King selling "Big Mac's".

The most important issue should be that people know that their stations are no longer physically restrained to a particular RF channel. Just let them know that you really broadcast on a UHF or a VHF-HB channel, and leave it at that. Then, they know what they need for an antenna.

You can provide a list, maybe on the station's website, to indicate the exact numbers for the folks who might have a need to know, such as installers....or someone who has to occasionally enter the numbers directly when scanning new channels in.

It's a lot nicer for the translator customers, too! And, BTW, what will happen to the "Channel 9 (on Cable)" station when the local Cable outfit goes all digital? Maybe they should step back from the channel number stuff for a while, and call themselves something different (without numbers).

 

[LKellerIII]

I think that changing the stations' "brand" would be just as confusing as McDonalds offering a "Whopper", and Burger King selling "Big Mac's".

The most important issue should be that people know that their stations are no longer physically restrained to a particular RF channel. Just let them know that you really broadcast on a UHF or a VHF-HB channel, and leave it at that. Then, they know what they need for an antenna.

Isn't this happening somewhat, already? NBC has been busy re-branding their owned and operated stations as "NBC New York,"NBC Bay Area," and so forth. At least in the Bay Area, channel position is no longer mentioned at all.

I presume this is not just because of the digital conversion, but possibly also to prevent confusion between over the air, cable and satellite. For years now, we've been in a world where cable channels are branded differently than broadcast channels. I think that consumers can deal with it...I know I can.

 

[fybush]

And, BTW, what will happen to the "Channel 9 (on Cable)" station when the local Cable outfit goes all digital? Maybe they should step back from the channel number stuff for a while, and call themselves something different (without numbers).

Some stations, especially those that started out on UHF and have multiple cable systems in the market, do indeed do that. One of my locals is simply "Fox Rochester," for instance, and down the road a bit, WUTR in Utica is just "WUTR."

But to answer the digital-cable question...nothing will change. My local Time Warner system still has analog service, but all the analog channels are duplicated on QAM digital, and my cable box tunes to those channels instead of the analog channels. It matters not a bit to the end user - "13" is still "13," whether the box is tuned to an analog signal at 210 MHz or a digital signal at 798 MHz.

Ken notes that it would be confusing if McDonalds started selling Whoppers and BK started selling Big Macs. Indeed it would - but the real analogy to what's happening in the DTV conversion would be even more confusing. Imagine if Wendy's started selling Big Macs and McDonalds started selling some "Megaburger" nobody had ever heard of - but by the luck of the draw, BK was able to keep on selling Whoppers.

That's the kind of disruption to the established competitive balance that would result from using RF channels instead of remapping - it's one thing if EVERYONE in the market shifts, but when a few stations get to keep their existing branding they've had for decades, while others get sent up to TV Siberia, it throws a wrench into viewing patterns in a way the industry would very much like to avoid.

(Again, you're talking about businesses, small businesses in some cases, that have already been asked to spend a million dollars per station or more on new equipment, some of which will be useless again after 2/17/09, not to mention giving up hours and hours of airtime to promote the switch and running the risk of losing some viewers in the conversion process.)

And I haven't even gotten into the really confusing channel swaps like Baltimore, where the station that's been known for 62 years as "Channel 2" will be occupying the RF spectrum that's been used for 60 years by the station known as "Channel 13" - while the station known as "13" moves upstairs to UHF 38.

You'd (well, not you, Ken, but the original poster) really say it's less confusing to have WMAR go from its established "Channel 2" to its longtime competitor's brand of "Channel 13" - while sending WJZ, the station that's been "Channel 13" since 1948, up to the unknown brand of "Channel 38" - all because some viewers' receivers (maybe 15% of total viewers) will now be tuning WJZ in at 614 MHz instead of 210 MHz and WMAR at 210 MHz instead of 54 MHz?

 

[w9wi]

Radio stations change dial positions all the time and they brand their frequencies. People don't seem to have a problem following an FM-to-FM move or even an AM-to-FM. Are you telling me TV viewers are not as intelligent as radio listeners?

And the last time every radio station in a market changed frequency at the same time was....???

(There is a correct answer to this question - let's see if anyone besides W9WI gets it...)

March 29, 1941..... (Trip, you've got the right decade but the wrong band. Actually, in a few markets one or two stations didn't change but in most markets they indeed all moved...)

_________________________________________________

We've been remapping channels since 1939.

When you try to watch WSMV channel 4 analog over an antenna, you can't tune your TV to channel 4. There is no such physical concept. Your TV contains a lookup table: when you select "channel 4" your TV knows you really mean "67.25MHz" - it tunes to that frequency, and finds WSMV broadcasting there.

The same thing happens when you try to watch WSMV's digital signal. When you select "channel 4" your TV knows you really mean "192.31MHz" - it tunes to that frequency, and finds WSMV broadcasting there.

The difference is that with analog TV, the lookup table is pre-programmed at the factory; with digital, the table is loaded when you scan for channels when the TV is first set up. You had to scan for analog channels anyway, so there is quite simply NO DIFFERENCE in behavior as far as the viewer is concerned. It's all behind the scenes, in your TV's firmware.

 

[fybush]

And the last time every radio station in a market changed frequency at the same time was....???

(There is a correct answer to this question - let's see if anyone besides W9WI gets it...)

March 29, 1941..... (Trip, you've got the right decade but the wrong band. Actually, in a few markets one or two stations didn't change but in most markets they indeed all moved...)

We have a winner!

(But then, I knew Doug would get that one immediately.)

Even at that, there was a very real difference - and some similarities - between the NARBA AM frequency shift of 1941 and the DTV conversion.

The NARBA shifts of 1941 didn't upset the competitive balance on the radio dial. Everyone stayed in the same relative positions - if you were on the bottom of the dial on March 28, you were still on the bottom of the dial on March 29 - and at the same power levels. (Many stations shifted again after the war as allocations rules were relaxed and directional antennas became more common, but that's a different story.)

And because most radio listening took place in the home, and there were only a handful of stations in most markets, the 3/29/41 shift really was a "remapping" for most people. Look at a typical home radio of the era, and while you'll see a dial marked with frequency, wavelength or both, one of the most prominent features will be a row of buttons above or below the dial, usually 5 or 6 of them, each marked with a pre-printed callsign insert.

When you bought your radio, the shop preset those buttons for you, and after that you didn't really think about tuning to "760" or "860" - you pressed the buttons marked "WJZ" and "WABC." And when those stations moved from 760 and 860 to 770 and 880, you had the local radio repairman (who must have had some very busy, and profitable, days in late March 1941) come by the house and adjust your buttons to the new frequencies. That was "remapping," in an early way, too.

The widespread use of frequency branding came a decade later, when those console radios with the buttons gave way to transistor radios with little dials marked only in frequencies. Look at any radio station ad from before that, and the frequency, if mentioned at all, was an afterthought.

We've been remapping channels since 1939.

When you try to watch WSMV channel 4 analog over an antenna, you can't tune your TV to channel 4. There is no such physical concept. Your TV contains a lookup table: when you select "channel 4" your TV knows you really mean "67.25MHz" - it tunes to that frequency, and finds WSMV broadcasting there.

The same thing happens when you try to watch WSMV's digital signal. When you select "channel 4" your TV knows you really mean "192.31MHz" - it tunes to that frequency, and finds WSMV broadcasting there.

The difference is that with analog TV, the lookup table is pre-programmed at the factory; with digital, the table is loaded when you scan for channels when the TV is first set up. You had to scan for analog channels anyway, so there is quite simply NO DIFFERENCE in behavior as far as the viewer is concerned. It's all behind the scenes, in your TV's firmware.

Well put, sir!

 

[tripinva]

And I haven't even gotten into the really confusing channel swaps like Baltimore, where the station that's been known for 62 years as "Channel 2" will be occupying the RF spectrum that's been used for 60 years by the station known as "Channel 13" - while the station known as "13" moves upstairs to UHF 38.

You'd (well, not you, Ken, but the original poster) really say it's less confusing to have WMAR go from its established "Channel 2" to its longtime competitor's brand of "Channel 13" - while sending WJZ, the station that's been "Channel 13" since 1948, up to the unknown brand of "Channel 38" - all because some viewers' receivers (maybe 15% of total viewers) will now be tuning WJZ in at 614 MHz instead of 210 MHz and WMAR at 210 MHz instead of 54 MHz?

Baltimore isn't one of those. WJZ is returning to 13, WMAR is moving to WJZ-DT's pre-transition channel 38 from 52.

One that is like that is in Tampa, FL. WTVT-13 is operating on DT-12, and WEDU-3 (DT-54) will end up on DT-13. And West Palm Beach has WPEC-12 on DT-13, with WPTV-5 (DT-55) on DT-12 after the transition.

Your point still stands., just saying. =)

- Trip

 

[BRNout]

Isn't this happening somewhat, already? NBC has been busy re-branding their owned and operated stations as "NBC New York,"NBC Bay Area," and so forth. At least in the Bay Area, channel position is no longer mentioned at all.

I presume this is not just because of the digital conversion, but possibly also to prevent confusion between over the air, cable and satellite. For years now, we've been in a world where cable channels are branded differently than broadcast channels. I think that consumers can deal with it...I know I can.

I don't know whether that's a company-wide, on-air thing or just something being used on the local websites. I say that because WMAQ unveiled their new "NBC CHICAGO.com" website, yet the on-air logo and positioning of the station actually promotes the "WMAQ NBC 5" moniker more heavily than before. Now the "5" is actually larger than the calls or NBC lettering. Despite the look of the website.

On a recent trip to the New York area, it didn't look like the "4" was going anywhere either.

Contrary to some of the predictions that I've read on this board, I might add.....

 

[fybush]

Baltimore isn't one of those. WJZ is returning to 13, WMAR is moving to WJZ-DT's pre-transition channel 38 from 52.

One that is like that is in Tampa, FL. WTVT-13 is operating on DT-12, and WEDU-3 (DT-54) will end up on DT-13. And West Palm Beach has WPEC-12 on DT-13, with WPTV-5 (DT-55) on DT-12 after the transition.

Your point still stands., just saying. =)

In a way, I actually kind of proved my own point, didn't I - if I can't even keep this stuff straight, how's a viewer in Baltimore or Tampa or West Palm going to make sense of it?

(I remember now why Baltimore threw me - WMAR is buying WJZ-DT's entire transmission chain, and leasing space in the WJZ building to keep the DT38 transmitter where it is.)

Another one like this: in Syracuse, WSTM-3 (now on 54) will be on DT 24 post-transition, while WCNY-24 will stay on 25.

 

[KML0224]

Here in Hartford/New Haven, WVIT-TV/DT (NBC) of New Britain recently changed their website address to nbcconnecticut.com. It had been nbc30.com until the fall. They are on analog cable channel 4 in most of the market. They are using channel 35 for WVIT-DT. Maybe it's best they just call themselves "NBC Connecticut" from here on out?

As for frequency swaps with old channels? I don't see that here. Two stations will go back to their analog channel after February 17 (CW and ION). The rest are already on their future channels:

WFSB (CBS) Hartford - A 3/D 33
WTNH (ABC) New Haven - A 8/D 10
WUVN (UNI) Hartford - A 18/D 46
WTXX (CW) Waterbury - A 20/D 12 [D 20 soon]
WEDH (PBS) Hartford - A 24/D 45
WHPX (ION) New London - A 26/D 34 [D 26 soon]
WVIT (NBC) New Britain - A 30/D 35
WEDN (PBS) Norwich - A 53/D 9
WCTX (MY) New Haven - A 59/D 39
WTIC (FOX) Hartford - A 61/D 31
WEDY (PBS) New Haven - D 6 [A 65 off the air]

 

[compubit]

I suspect that the heritage NBC stations (e.g., WNBC, KNBC, WMAQ, etc.) will keep the NBC# (or even "Channel #") branding. KNTV (NBC 3, NBC 11, NBC Bay Area...) hasn't been an NBC station all that long (only several years), rather than 50+ years...

KNBC still airs "The Channel 4 News" - and folks in southern California know that NBC is on channel 4 (regardless of physical channel number), just like folks in Utah know that ABC is on Channel 4 (even on analog with translators on different channel numbers). It's all branding.

Once the dust settles, you may see some requests to change virtual channel numbers (most likely to a lower number - maybe to match local cable systems?), but we'll let that scenario rear it's head off in the future...

Jim

 

[dhett]

Did I read that, post transition, translators would be allowed to map to the parent station's psip (current analog) channel number?

You did, they are, and it's seamless.

For the most part. I'm still waiting to see how the Mohave County Board of Supervisors handles LP DTV in Kingman, Arizona, where one of their translators rebroadcasts PBS station KAET 8 Phoenix on RF 49 while another rebroadcasts CBS station KLAS 8 Las Vegas on RF 31. KAET has 4 subchannels, while KLAS has 2.

Ditto for St. George, Utah, where one translator rebroadcasts KTVX 4 Salt Lake City (it already has a DTV companion), while another rebroadcasts KCSG 4 Cedar City.

Bullhead City AZ and Laughlin NV will have the same issue with KTVK 3 Phoenix and KVBC 3 Las Vegas, KPHO 5 Phoenix and KVVU 5 Henderson, KAET 8 Phoenix and KLAS 8 Las Vegas, and KSAZ 10 Phoenix and KLVX 10 Las Vegas. The same issue would have also existed between KNXV 15 Phoenix and KINC 15 Las Vegas, but the two translators that carried KNXV have switched to KTNV 13 Las Vegas instead.

This thread is blurring the line between "branding" and "mapping". Stations already brand themselves in any way they please (MY TV 9 for WCTX A59/D39 New Haven CT; CW 6 for KASW A61/D49 Phoenix AZ; Fox 5 San Diego for KSWB A69/D19 San Diego CA). The FCC regulations only cover mapping via PSIP, and only full-service stations are required to use it.

 

[Poledo]

Since most stations today aren't carried on their actual channel numbers on cable, due to interference issues, do you think that many stations will request cable companies move them to their ota virtual channel numbers after the transition? Seems like a good idea to me, especially in the big markets with multiple low numbered/vhf channels. It would solve more identity problems than anything stations could do for ota viewers.

 

[dhett]

Since most stations today aren't carried on their actual channel numbers on cable, due to interference issues, do you think that many stations will request cable companies move them to their ota virtual channel numbers after the transition? Seems like a good idea to me, especially in the big markets with multiple low numbered/vhf channels. It would solve more identity problems than anything stations could do for ota viewers.

I doubt it. A lot of the stations being carried on cable on a channel other than their broadcast channel prefer to be carried that way, primarily due to a more favorable placement in the lineup. For example, in Phoenix, KTVW 33, KTAZ 39, KUTP 45, KPPX 51 and KASW 61 are carried on Cox cable on channels 19, 20, 9, 17 and 6, respectively, and channels 2-22 make up their "basic" package. In San Diego, KSWB 69 is on channel 5 while KNSD 39 is on channel 7. I don't see that changing.

 

[tripinva]

I interpreted poledo's message to be referring to places where even the VHF channels are skewed due to ingress. In some places near me, WDBJ-7 is on 8, WSLS-10 is on 11, and WSET-13 is on 3. I forsee things like that changing in places where stations aren't reverting to their analog channels.

- Trip

 

[w9wi]

Did I read that, post transition, translators would be allowed to map to the parent station's psip (current analog) channel number?

You did, they are, and it's seamless.

For the most part. I'm still waiting to see how the Mohave County Board of Supervisors handles LP DTV in Kingman, Arizona, where one of their translators rebroadcasts PBS station KAET 8 Phoenix on RF 49 while another rebroadcasts CBS station KLAS 8 Las Vegas on RF 31. KAET has 4 subchannels, while KLAS has 2.
...

The FCC regulations only cover mapping via PSIP, and only full-service stations are required to use it.

The ATSC A/65 standard says:

For a translated signal, the major/minor channel numbers shall remain the same as the original broadcast station unless the major channel conflicts with a broadcaster operating
in the service area of the translator. In that case, the translator shall change the major number to a non-conflicting number.

So in these situations, one of the translators gets to choose whatever major channel number they want. I suppose "01" or "37" or "72" would be perfectly legal choices.

(as you say, A/65 - PSIP - is not technically binding on translators. They are simply required to transmit a signal that can be "satisfactorily viewed" on a DTV designed to receive ATSC signals. I do think it's difficult to come up with a way to violate this rather vague requirement without making it impossible to satisfactorily view the signal!)

(since someone will ask... channel numbers, both major and minor, must be between 1 and 99 inclusive. Channel 0 won't work, and neither will 237.)

 

[Poledo]

I interpreted poledo's message to be referring to places where even the VHF channels are skewed due to ingress. In some places near me, WDBJ-7 is on 8, WSLS-10 is on 11, and WSET-13 is on 3. I forsee things like that changing in places where stations aren't reverting to their analog channels.

- Trip

Yes, that's what I was trying to ask in my 2 AM deliriousness. Thanks for cleaning up my question. And why would it matter if the station reverted to it's analog channel, a digital ota signal wouldn't cause much (if any) interference on a leaky analog cable, would it? It certainly wouldn't matter on digital cable.