WFAA SEEKS POWER INCREASE

[Bob E. Nelson]

Belo's WFAA, an early adopter of digital, now seeks an increase in power on RF-8 from 45 kW to 55 kW. Here are some highlights from the application accepted by the FCC on 24 DEC 2009:

``SINCE COMMENCING OPERATION ON ITS POST-TRANSITION VHF CHANNEL, WFAA BEGAN TO RECEIVE A DELUGE OF CALLS FROM VIEWERS THAT COULD NO LONGER RECEIVE THE STATIONS DIGITAL SIGNAL VIA THEIR INDOOR ANTENNAS. DESPITE ATTEMPTS TO WALK CALLERS THROUGH THE PROCESS OF RESETTING AND/OR RE-SCANNING THEIR EQUIPMENT, STATION PERSONNEL WERE UNABLE TO RESOLVE MANY INDOOR RECEPTION ISSUES. THUS, BELO IS REQUESTING AUTHORITY TO INCREASE WFAA'S POWER TO 55 KW ERP.
[...]
BELO IS PROPOSING THE POWER INCREASE TO IMPROVE SERVICE TO ITS EXISTING VIEWERS BY PROVIDING THEM WITH A MORE ROBUST SIGNAL.''

See the full details here:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/w...xt=25&appn=101348515&formid=301&fac_num=72054

 

[sathman01]

Belo is spending money??? *thunk*

 

[JHBrandt]

OK, I see what they're doing. They're adjusting their antenna to introduce a slight (0.75 degree) downward "beam tilt." This will give them a slight effective power boost. The side effect is that their antenna will no longer be quite omnidirectional, so they have to increase the actual power by 1 dB to ensure that folks in the antenna's non-favored directions will get the same signal strength as before.

Combined, the changes will probably eliminate some dropouts and thus improve viewer satisfaction, but I doubt they'll bring many viewers all the way from "not getting the signal" to "getting the signal."

 

[OnTexasTime]

Great, I hope it is granted. I have trouble with them cutting out at my house and cannot pick them up at all at the office.

 

[tripinva]

Um, they have always had 0.75° beam tilt. That's not changing.

- Trip

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

Um, they have always had 0.75° beam tilt. That's not changing.

The app specifies the same model of antenna as the one now in use with the same beam tilt and circular polarization. The only differences I see are the new directional pattern (currently non-DA), a slightly lower HAAT by 2 meters and additional ERP.

Given the interference agreement with KLTV, what would have prevented WFAA from just applying for the new power level and leaving everything else unchanged.

 

[tripinva]

I'm not convinced the current antenna is non-directional. I think it might be a mistake on the FCC's part. As for the HAAT calculation, I note that the height above ground is the same. My guess is that they ran a new HAAT calculation on different software and got a different output.

- Trip

 

[JHBrandt]

Um, they have always had 0.75° beam tilt. That's not changing.

- Trip

Maybe so, but neither the FCC query nor WFAA's license application (at https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/w...text=25&appn=101315778&formid=2&fac_num=72054) said anything about beam tilt. But looking back at the original CP app (at https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/w...xt=25&appn=101309817&formid=301&fac_num=72054) does indeed show the same 0.75 degree beam tilt. My bad.

So it seems you're right (as you usually are), and the power increase is only 0.5 to 1 dB, depending on direction. Which means it's even harder to see how this will help significantly.

 

[JHBrandt]

I'm not convinced the current antenna is non-directional. I think it might be a mistake on the FCC's part. As for the HAAT calculation, I note that the height above ground is the same. My guess is that they ran a new HAAT calculation on different software and got a different output.

- Trip

You're probably right about that. Something about the antenna has to change in order to change the radiation pattern. So either the FCC is wrong and the existing pattern is non-directional (and the power will be going up 1 dB everywhere), or they're doing something to their antenna besides just boosting the power a bit.

 

[DallasMike]

My guess is they are attempting to improve the viewing experience for OTA folks with marginal antenna systems. It's not about expanding the coverage area. Not really sure this will improve their situation. UHF and 1MW might be the only way to stop the viewer complaints mentioned in the filing.....

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

My guess is they are attempting to improve the viewing experience for OTA folks with marginal antenna systems. It's not about expanding the coverage area. Not really sure this will improve their situation. UHF and 1MW might be the only way to stop the viewer complaints mentioned in the filing.....

In 20/20 hindsight, WFAA should have persuaded their kissing cousin KFWD/52 to remain on RF-51. That was a great signal with 375 kw up at 545 meters, making the appropriate QRM agreements. Then, Belo could've shunted KFWD down to VHF and moved WFAA up to 51, thus making D/FW an all UHF market for the network affils.

What surprises me about this is how long it took for WFAA to come to the realization that VHF was going to be problematical for many viewers. As an early adopter of digital (1998), surely they were aware of the complaints for over a decade when running 18.6 kw on RF-9. Did they *really* think that 45 kw (and now 55 kw) would be a magic bullet when the move was made to RF-8 on 12 JUN 2009?

I'll hasten to add that all of the VHFs come in fine at my location (including KXII and even KHPK). But I'm sure my setup is very atypical.

 

[Gridlock Joe]

EDIT -- My mistake.

 

[JHBrandt]

I put much of the blame for VHF problems on the "wild west" antenna market. Manufacturers have gotten away with murder for years selling UHF-only antennas as "HDTV" antennas, thus persuading folks to throw away their rabbit ears under the misimpression that they wouldn't receive HDTV broadcasts. Even now, I see very few indoor antennas designed for VHF (this one: http://www.winegard.com/freevision/index.php seems to be an exception, though I suspect the reflector is still too small for really good VHF performance. Has anyone tried this antenna?)

Of course, even a poor antenna will pull in a (crummy) analog signal, so folks who couldn't get WFAA in digital probably just stayed with their analog broadcast until 6/12. After all, every other station worked in digital....

Digital tuners/converter boxes come in for some blame too. If a signal's too weak to lock, many offer no help whatsoever with re-orienting an antenna to pull it in better. And if the signal does lock, the antenna doesn't need to be re-oriented (unless too many dropouts are occurring). The signal strength function should work even with no lock.

 

[JHBrandt]

... I see very few indoor antennas designed for VHF (this one: http://www.winegard.com/freevision/index.php seems to be an exception, though I suspect the reflector is still too small for really good VHF performance. Has anyone tried this antenna?)

Finally got a look at the specs. As I feared, the FreeVision reflector is too small for VHF - it's worse than rabbit ears! How disappointing.

Winegard's HD-1080 works better at VHF, but has its own problems: 1) it's sold as an outdoor antenna - if you want to use it indoors, you'll have to rig up a stand to hold it; and 2) it's radiation pattern is backwards at VHF, so unless you live where all your UHF stations are in one direction and all your VHF stations are in the opposite direction (never the case with WFAA), you'd have to rotate it 180 degrees when switching between a VHF and a UHF station (or use two antennas with a VHF/UHF combiner) :

In short, I'm still looking for a decent indoor VHF antenna.

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

In short, I'm still looking for a decent indoor VHF antenna.

I don't want to pimp either of these too much since YMMV but two Terk models have worked well for me. The caveat is that I lucked into a great location in spite of being 40 miles out from Cedar Hill, with good elevation so everything's LOS.

The HTDVo is touted as an outdoor antenna but its footprint is small enough to be used indoors. That little sucker is only about 30 inches from tip-to-tip and it even pulls in KHPK/3 with its folded dipole VHF element. Getting WFAA (RF-8), KTVT (RF-11) and KFWD (RF-52) is not a problem at all. Everyone of the Cedar Hill Us come in with it -- regardless of power.

And the HDTVa isn't too shabby. Designed as an indoor unit, I consider it the little brother of the HDTVo since the VHF side isn't as robust -- just standard rabbit ears. It's not as strong for VHF and I've never seen KHPK/3 on this.

If you've already tried these without the success I've enjoyed, apologies in advance for the post.

 

[tripinva]

My VHF bowtie makes a great VHF antenna. It's a bit big, but it's cheap and relatively easy to build. I am 53 miles out from my ABC station on channel 13 and my spectrum analyzer says I can position it such that I get >36 dB SNR out of it, which is basically maxed out.

It also works respectably on UHF, though exactly how well it works on UHF is up for debate.

- Trip

 

[JHBrandt]

My VHF bowtie makes a great VHF antenna. It's a bit big, but it's cheap and relatively easy to build. I am 53 miles out from my ABC station on channel 13 and my spectrum analyzer says I can position it such that I get >36 dB SNR out of it, which is basically maxed out.

It also works respectably on UHF, though exactly how well it works on UHF is up for debate.

- Trip

Right now DIY is probably the best choice for indoor VHF. I built a very simple 2-bay UHF "coathanger" antenna, put a 3-foot-wide reflector on it in order to get passable performance on VHF-Hi, and set it atop my refrigerator. Works fine for 8, 11, and 52 (of course it's totally useless for channel 3) as well as the UHF channels - even some of the LP ones. (I'm 30 miles from the transmitters with mediocre elevation.)

I took a look at the Terk HDTVo, and indeed it might be a good option if you can rig a stand for indoor use. (So there's still some DIY involved.) I had good VHF performance using one of their satellite dish clip-ons, and the VHF part of the HDTVo is basically the same (with the advantage of being aimable) so it should be at least as good.

 

[JHBrandt]

Last Friday WFAA applied for Special Temporary Authority to begin operating at 55 kW. Presumably the FCC will act on this more quickly than on their construction permit application and, if approved, will let them increase their power sooner.

I wish them luck, but still doubt it'll make much difference.

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

Last Friday WFAA applied for Special Temporary Authority to begin operating at 55 kW. Presumably the FCC will act on this more quickly than on their construction permit application and, if approved, will let them increase their power sooner.

I wish them luck, but still doubt it'll make much difference.

As I understand it, the VHF stations that have been increasing power are doing so not to extend coverage but to get a better power density. This may be of some benefit for people using rabbit ears trying to capture WFAA's signal on RF-8.

By the way, KHFD/51 was granted a CP today, allowing the move from Royce City to Cedar Hill with 5 kW directional.

 

[arnoldevns]

Last Friday WFAA applied for Special Temporary Authority to begin operating at 55 kW. Presumably the FCC will act on this more quickly than on their construction permit application and, if approved, will let them increase their power sooner.

I wish them luck, but still doubt it'll make much difference.

As I understand it, the VHF stations that have been increasing power are doing so not to extend coverage but to get a better power density. This may be of some benefit for people using rabbit ears trying to capture WFAA's signal on RF-8.

By the way, KHFD/51 was granted a CP today, allowing the move from Royce City to Cedar Hill with 5 kW directional.

The rabbit ears thing is far more important than you might think.