What Channels Are the FCC Trying To Reclaim

[Markxxx]

With all the news of the FCC wanting voluntary methods of repackaging the TV spectrum I still see various answers that disagree when I google this.

OK TV was channel 2 -83 (yes I know about channel 1 )

Then Channels 70 -83 were reclaimed.
Then Channels 52 - 69 were reclaimed

So what is this current group of channels the FCC wants to reclaim? I know you can't use 37 and channels 14 -19 are not available in some cities like Chicago.

Thanks

 

[KeithE4]

With all the news of the FCC wanting voluntary methods of repackaging the TV spectrum I still see various answers that disagree when I google this.

OK TV was channel 2 -83 (yes I know about channel 1 )

Then Channels 70 -83 were reclaimed.
Then Channels 52 - 69 were reclaimed

So what is this current group of channels the FCC wants to reclaim? I know you can't use 37 and channels 14 -19 are not available in some cities like Chicago.

Thanks

In some cases, they think it may be a good idea for stations to combine their operations into a single transmitter. They don't mandate it, however. It makes some sense for stations that aren't using hi-def - four stations could be combined and jointly own the transmitter. CBS- and Fox-owned duopolies are another possibility since many don't have subchannels (especially those owned by CBS).

No channel blocks are going to be withdrawn from TV, but frequencies in between existing TV stations will be made available for various wireless services. It might be much tougher to put a new TV transmitter on the air, especially in major markets, if this proposal does go through.

 

[dave73]

Last I heard, the FCC wants to take away 31 - 36 & 38 - 51 for broadband service. Now I hear the FCC (run by Julius Genechowski) wants to actually remove all broadcasters from the UHF band, & force them to use VHF exclusively. VHF isn't always good for digital TV, as some stations can't be received at all, or not as well. While I didn't have a problem getting WBBM-TV on channel 3, Class A digital station, WOCK-CD broadcasts at only 300 watts, and I barely receive it with my current antenna, & a pre-amp (didn't have a pre-amp for WBBM-TV on channel 3).

Now if it's true that the FCC wants to eliminate UHF completely for TV use, then only the largest markets will have TV stations, while a number of smaller all UHF markets will have no TV stations at all, or lucky if they get 1. South Bend & Fort Wayne Indiana are 2 Indiana markets that have always been UHF markets. Madison Wisconsin recently went all UHF after WMSN vacated channel 11 for channel 49. When counting only full power stations, Chicago will only have 1 VHF after WLS-TV vacates 7, & that's WBBM-TV on channel 12. In Milwaukee, they only have 1 VHF station, & it's MPTV's WMVS, & it already gets interference from WWMT Kalamazoo, MI on channel 8 (and vice versa). The current FCC in charge has intention of eliminating OTA as we know it. Before you know it, they may even eliminate other frequencies that are used by other agencies as well, just to help out Verizon & AT&T, who's mainly stockpiling their licenses & not always building out networks on those licenses (especially licenses above 1ghz in most of rural America)

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2010/12/02/47448/fcc-plan-makes-vhf-a-very-high-priority

 

[KeithE4]

Last I heard, the FCC wants to take away 31 - 36 & 38 - 51 for broadband service. Now I hear the FCC (run by Julius Genechowski) wants to actually remove all broadcasters from the UHF band, & force them to use VHF exclusively.

You hear wrong. That is not in the NPRM. New services would be put in between existing stations. The only potential issues are with channels 36, 38, and 51. If high-powered TV transmitters become a problem for new 700 MHz services and existing radio-astronomy use of Channel 37, some stations could conceivably get moved. But that is only one idea from one commissioner. Nothing has been decided yet and won't be for several more months.

But UHF TV is not going away by order of the FCC. If stations go dark, it will be because the networks are gone and a market can't support multiple independents. But we're many years away from that possibility.

 

[w9wi]

Last I heard, the FCC wants to take away 31 - 36 & 38 - 51 for broadband service. Now I hear the FCC (run by Julius Genechowski) wants to actually remove all broadcasters from the UHF band, & force them to use VHF exclusively.

You hear wrong. That is not in the NPRM. New services would be put in between existing stations. The only potential issues are with channels 36, 38, and 51. If high-powered TV transmitters become a problem for new 700 MHz services and existing radio-astronomy use of Channel 37, some stations could conceivably get moved. But that is only one idea from one commissioner. Nothing has been decided yet and won't be for several more months.
...

I think Dave has this week's NPRM confused with the White Spaces proceeding. The rules on these "TV Band Devices" were finalized over the summer and authorize mobile devices only in channels 21-51. (except 37) (base stations can also use channel 2 and channels 5 and up, again except 37)

TVBDs are secondary to broadcasting and do not require the purchase at auction of a channel. Presumably they won't have nearly the coverage area of the devices the FCC is considering in this week's proceeding.

 

[dave73]

I was not talking about the white space between existing channels. There's already talk that the FCC wants to eliminate more channels from the TV lineup. The white space between TV channels is so small, that it might only be good enough for unlicensed Wi-Fi, or other low-tech device. The current FCC intends to destroy TV as we know it.

Here's one link to a story I found.

The link I provided in a previous post came from a non-competing website to radio-info.

 

[w9wi]

I was not talking about the white space between existing channels. There's already talk that the FCC wants to eliminate more channels from the TV lineup. The white space between TV channels is so small, that it might only be good enough for unlicensed Wi-Fi, or other low-tech device. The current FCC intends to destroy TV as we know it.

There is literally *no* space *between* TV channels -- channel 18 runs from 494 through 500MHz, and channel 19 picks up immediately at 500MHz and runs through 506. And so on. With digital TV, the digital signal runs all the way to the edge of the channel.

"White Spaces', in the FCC sense, means one or more full 6MHz TV channels which are not used by TV stations in a given area and can, at least according to the Commission, be used for something else without interfering. A TV Band Device (white space device) might, for example, learn that channel 24 is unused in its area; that TVBD would then use the entire 6MHz width of channel 24 to transfer its data. It's *not* trying to sneak a few kilobaud into the space between channels 24 and 25.

But again, that's a different proceeding from the one that launched this thread.

There was earlier discussion of removing channels 47-51. (or was it 46-51) That's not in this proceeding. (at least not that I can find)

 

[Bob1370]

You have to be careful in trying to cram the spectrum too full in any market because co-channel stations need to be at least 170 miles apart or they'll clobber each other within the Grade B contour--which is why the FCC has not licensed new short-spaced stations since 1952.

However, having said that, in the digital era, you can probably get away with co-locating adjacent channel stations now provided you respect the co-channel spacing rules. You can also compress the UHF band. In the age of flaky drifting tuners back in the 50s (when the FCC wrote the basic analog channel allocation table) you needed to space stations in the same market six channels apart. Now, adjacent channel or alternate channel allocations are possible on UHF just like VHF. The FCC says it's rethinking TV allocations in two ways; first, repopulating the VHF band with higher-power transmitters to overcome noise (probably power levels as high as their old visual ERP in analog times), and second, compressing the stations still on UHF into a smaller number of channels...all to open up added UHF spectrum for broadband wireless data services. What this will probably mean is pushing former VHF stations back to their old pre-2009 channels if they didn't stay there (as many high band Vs and a few on channels 5 and 6 did), putting some additional U's up above channel 40 down to VHF wherever possible, and finally, purshing remaining U's into the lower channels from 14 to 40, compressing them closer together on the dial.

 

[w9wi]

You have to be careful in trying to cram the spectrum too full in any market because co-channel stations need to be at least 170 miles apart or they'll clobber each other within the Grade B contour--which is why the FCC has not licensed new short-spaced stations since 1952.

Under political pressure they actually *did* license some new short-spaced stations in the 1970s.

The required distances have changed for DTV. If I'm reading the rule properly, the figures are now 147/164 miles VHF (Zone I vs. II/III) and 118/134 miles UHF.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/octqtr/47cfr73.623.htm

However, having said that, in the digital era, you can probably get away with co-locating adjacent channel stations now provided you respect the co-channel spacing rules.

Co-location of adjacent-channel stations is now routinely permitted with DTV. Adjacent-channel stations must be within 12-14 miles of each other (distance varying with zone & VHF/UHF) *or* at least 66 miles apart.

Right now, the FCC's proposal is for any channel moves to be voluntary. Informed speculation is that few stations will bite.

 

[JHBrandt]

It appears no one answered the OP's question. The answer is here: http://www.broadband.gov/plan/5-spectrum/#s5-4

In brief, the FCC wants another 120 MHz, or 20 channels, from the UHF TV band; most likely channels 31-51. (Channel 37 is reserved for radio astronomy and unused, so we have to give up 21 channel numbers to give up 20 actual channels.) That would reduce the total number of OTA TV channels from 49 to 29, and the total number of UHF TV channels from 37 to 17.

This would be an extremely tight fit for the larger TV markets. In my market, DFW, we already have 17 full-power stations, 15 of which are on UHF. It is highly unlikely that all 15 could crowd into the 17 remaining slots without causing interference to other nearby markets, so some would be forced back to VHF, probably including the dreaded VHF-Lo channels (2-6).

Edit: Upon closer reading it appears Dave did give this answer, whereupon an argument ensued based on confusion between the NBP and the so-called "white spaces," which refer not to spaces between adjacent TV channels (which don't exist) but to TV channels that are unused in a given market. If the NBP goes through, it appears there will be very little "white space" left to make use of.

The only good news is that city police departments will likely be upgrading their radio systems to use the newly created 700 MHz band, which will free up UHF channels 14-19 in cities where these are currently used for police radio (such as Dallas, where channels 15-17 are currently reserved for this purpose).

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

In my market, DFW, we already have 17 full-power stations, 15 of which are on UHF. It is highly unlikely that all 15 could crowd into the 17 remaining slots without causing interference to other nearby markets, so some would be forced back to VHF, probably including the dreaded VHF-Lo channels (2-6).

The actual count of full-service facilities in DFW is 18 with the RF frequency shown (discounting the KTVT simulcast on RF-11 and RF-19). In any case, 17 or 18, it's going to be a tight fit for repacking even if all of the nearly dozen LPTVs in the market vanish:

2/KDTN 43
4/KDFW 35
5/KXAS 41
8/WFAA 8
11/KTVT 19
13/KERA 14
21/KTXA 29
23/KUVN 23
27/KDFI 36
29/KMPX 30
33/KDAF 32
39/KXTX 40
47/KTAQ 46
49/KSTR 48
52/KFWD 9
55/KLDT 39
58/KDTX 45
68/KPXD 42

 

[JHBrandt]

The actual count of full-service facilities in DFW is 18 with the RF frequency shown (discounting the KTVT simulcast on RF-11 and RF-19). In any case, 17 or 18, it's going to be a tight fit for repacking even if all of the nearly dozen LPTVs in the market vanish:

2/KDTN 43
4/KDFW 35
5/KXAS 41
8/WFAA 8
11/KTVT 19
13/KERA 14
21/KTXA 29
23/KUVN 23
27/KDFI 36
29/KMPX 30
33/KDAF 32
39/KXTX 40
47/KTAQ 46
49/KSTR 48
52/KFWD 9
55/KLDT 39
58/KDTX 45
68/KPXD 42

Right; I forgot about KLDT - er, I mean, KAZD, or whatever they're calling it this week.

I worked out that if the FCC relents just a little and settles for only 102 MHz, DFW could just barely squeeze into RF 2-33. But that assumes (1) the Dallas police upgrade their radios, so we get channels 15-17 back; (2) channels 2, 4, 5, and 27 go back to their old analog frequencies (this displaces KSFW and KODF, but they aren't broadcasting anything anyhow); and (3) KTVT follows through on their plans to abandon RF 11. IF the other displaced full-power stations can move to channels 6, 13, 16, 17, 24, and 33 w/o interference issues, that leaves 7, 10-12, 15, and 26 for displaced LP's. (It's likely that none of the latter are suitable for full-power signals due to interference; even LP's would need weird antenna patterns to avoid problems.) But at least everyone could have fun crumpling balls of aluminum foil onto the ends of their rabbit ears trying to pull in our new VHF-Lo stations :

To get all the way to 120 MHz, KDFI/27 could go SD and move to a subchannel of KDFW/4 to free up one more slot. Similarly, KFWD/52 could give up HD (they aren't using it anyhow) and move to a subchannel of WFAA (bye-bye Accuweather); finally, left with no alternative, CBS could move KTXA/21 to an SD subchannel of KTVT/11. But even that probably wouldn't work, because similar scrambling in adjacent markets would lead to interference issues I didn't anticipate.

Bottom line: if we lose 120 MHz, something's gonna give. Realistically, to avoid the VHF-Lo ghetto we need to hang onto channels 31-36 at a bare minimum.

 

[WPPCProductions]

I heard this rumour awhile ago.Who's going to pay the broadcasters to upgrade their transmitters again.Also is this going to make ota DTV better or worse as it is to receive.What happen to the rumour about lower VHF going to FM.

 

[KeithE4]

I heard this rumour awhile ago.Who's going to pay the broadcasters to upgrade their transmitters again.Also is this going to make ota DTV better or worse as it is to receive.What happen to the rumour about lower VHF going to FM.

In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. I can see the FCC assigning unused UHF channels to broadband on a market-by-market basis, but a wholesale reallocation just isn't practical.

 

[WPPCProductions]

I heard this rumour awhile ago.Who's going to pay the broadcasters to upgrade their transmitters again.Also is this going to make ota DTV better or worse as it is to receive.What happen to the rumour about lower VHF going to FM.

In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. I can see the FCC assigning unused UHF channels to broadband on a market-by-market basis, but a wholesale reallocation just isn't practical.

I wont.As everyone said VHF stinks on DTV.Who needs more wireless.I'm doing fine without it.I think I mentioned before about the emergency response thing the FCC was promoting 2 years ago.Did any of these channels get on the air for emergency response people in this country.Or that was hype for the wireless"cellphone" people to buy in on more channels.

 

[JHBrandt]

... Who's going to pay the broadcasters to upgrade their transmitters again....

They're using the term "incentive auction." I think the idea is to offer the broadcasters "a piece of the action" to sell off their high UHF frequencies to wireless broadband providers and move to lower frequencies.

It's supposed to be voluntary, at least for full-power broadcasters, and nothing will happen unless/until Congress approves. At this point it's just a plan. Still, it's important to be aware of. Wireless broadband is big business and growing rapidly, and they have a lot of clout in DC. But then, so does the NAB. This could be a clash of titans.

... What happen to the rumour about lower VHF going to FM.

That's not so much a rumor as a set of alternate proposals (and much better ones IMO) to allocate some of the VHF-Lo band to low-power FM and/or digital radio. I've heard various proposals: the easiest is probably to reassign channel 6 to LPFM. Other proposals are shared use (whichever of channel 5 or 6 is unused in your area would go to LPFM, so the few broadcasters still on 6 wouldn't have to move); and a proposal to allocate an unused channel for transitioning AM to digital radio. Again, nothing is definite yet. These VHF-Lo proposals would be much less likely under the NBP, however, due to the TV spectrum scarcity the NBP would create.

 

[Sammi Brie]

Problem with any radio move is "would there be compatibility kits for cars?".

 

[tripinva]

The only good news is that city police departments will likely be upgrading their radio systems to use the newly created 700 MHz band, which will free up UHF channels 14-19 in cities where these are currently used for police radio (such as Dallas, where channels 15-17 are currently reserved for this purpose).

Not sure where you heard that. If anything, those systems have been expanding in recent years (see recent additions of 16 New York and 15 Los Angeles to the reserved list). I have been told in no uncertain terms that the police departments have no intention of giving up those frequencies if they already have them.

- Trip

 

[JHBrandt]

You are probably right. It appears I over-extrapolated from this very brief news item from late last year: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/tech/Dallas-Two-Way-Radios-Need-100-Million-Upgrade-106733653.html

The key phrase was "the federal government is requiring a switch to a more modern digital radio system." It seemed likely that the move from analog to digital also meant a move from 485 MHz to the new 700+ MHz band. Upon further research, however, it appears that's only partially true. Unfortunately, the news item mixed up a few different things.

The short-term goal is "narrowbanding" to meet a Jan. 1, 2013 FCC mandate. This involves purchasing new digital radios which use 12.5 kHz channels instead of the 25 kHz channels used by the current system. It will cost about $31 million, $27 million of which is state & federal grant money. This project is already underway.

The long-term goal is Project 25. This is the $100 million price tag referred to in the story, and it's what will let the Dallas radio system interoperate with other radio systems. But it's not part of the FCC narrowbanding mandate and won't be complete until the end of 2014.

Neither project requires a move to 700 MHz. Details are scarce but it appears likely that handheld radios will operate in the 700 MHz band, while police car/motorcycle radios remain at 485 MHz.

Nevertheless, the upgrades may permit Dallas to return one or two UHF channels to TV use. The current system basically wastes channels 15 and 17, and the new system will presumably be more tolerant of adjacent-channel interference. That's reasonable speculation but of course I have no way of knowing for sure until Dallas applies for an FCC license for their new radio system.

 

[JHBrandt]

Problem with any radio move is "would there be compatibility kits for cars?"

I'm sure there would be, although a car is an unlikely place to listen to a low-power radio station with limited range. But if we're talking about LPFM, we're basically just widening the existing FM band.

Digital radio is a little harder, but there are already HD Radio kits available. They work much like a DTV converter box for an old analog TV.

If an open standard like DRM were used in the new band instead of the proprietary HD Radio standard, the kits would be reasonably cheap as well.