• 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

What ever happened to the big NYC transmitter idea?

T

toby

Guest
What ever happened to the big NYC transmitter idea?
I recall seeing plans somewhat akin to the CN Tower a few years back to replace the WTC and deal with some of the technical problems at the ESB.
<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>
 
> What ever happened to the big NYC transmitter idea?
> I recall seeing plans somewhat akin to the CN Tower a few
> years back to replace the WTC and deal with some of the
> technical problems at the ESB.
>

I believe that the plans for new construction at the
World Trade Center site include provisions for a
broadcast mast. The so-called Freedom Tower will reach
its 1776-feet height in great part because of the tower
planned for the top.

There has been a lot of hoopla over the Freedom Tower
but influential individuals are lobbying hard against
it. Perhaps a decision will be made, I hope, to build
something more akin to the towers that were destroyed.
I am sure that whatever is built will have provision
for broadcast antennas.
 
Well considering the so called Freedom Tower is looking like its going to be a major boondoggle and wind up being like the Second Avenue Subway, Westway, etc.;
something really does need to be built soon.

<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>
 
Isn't the tower atop 4 Times Square an interim arrangement since plans for the 2,000 footer in New Jersey have been abandoned?
 
> Isn't the tower atop 4 Times Square an interim arrangement
> since plans for the 2,000 footer in New Jersey have been
> abandoned?
>

When you think about it, why do the New York stations
need a super-tall antenna site. They probably can
cover the area for which they program..New York City..with
a much more modest array than something 2000 feet up.
Are any of the TV stations having a problem from the ESB?
 
> When you think about it, why do the New York stations
> need a super-tall antenna site. They probably can
> cover the area for which they program..New York City..with
> a much more modest array than something 2000 feet up.

I thought the whole idea for a super-tall antenna was do deal with the problem of all the tall buildings in Manhattan, as this was a consideration when the WTC was built.

> Are any of the TV stations having a problem from the ESB?

I am reasonably sure that there are space issues, so you cannot have all the TV and radio transmitters that were on the WTC on the ESB.<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>
 
> > When you think about it, why do the New York stations
> > need a super-tall antenna site. They probably can
> > cover the area for which they program..New York City..with
>
> > a much more modest array than something 2000 feet up.
>
> I thought the whole idea for a super-tall antenna was do
> deal with the problem of all the tall buildings in
> Manhattan, as this was a consideration when the WTC was
> built.
>
> > Are any of the TV stations having a problem from the ESB?
>
> I am reasonably sure that there are space issues, so you
> cannot have all the TV and radio transmitters that were on
> the WTC on the ESB.
> Think of this,how many people do you know who are still relying on a rooftop antenna for TV shows,I will bet the answer is NONE,why waste the money for an analog system anyway,at the least put up a digital only system.
 
> Think of this,how many people do you know who are still
> relying on a rooftop antenna for TV shows,I will bet the
> answer is NONE,why waste the money for an analog system
> anyway,at the least put up a digital only system.

It may be more than you think, even though you may not know anyone personally.

The ideal situation is leave the analog transmitters in place while building a new platform for the digital TV and radio stations.<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>
 
> > Think of this,how many people do you know who are still
> > relying on a rooftop antenna for TV shows,I will bet the
> > answer is NONE,why waste the money for an analog system
> > anyway,at the least put up a digital only system.

Actually there are two problems with this.

First is the subject of multiple sets. I don't know anyone with Cable or Satellite TV that doesn't have at least one set in their bedroom or den or someplace that has the old rabbit ears on it.

Also a majority of poor and poverty people STILL do not have cable. And because minorities such as blacks and latinos tend to have less income they fall into that category MORE often.

So you are disenfranchinsing poor people.

So you might think "why should advertisers care about poor people? They aren't out buying things."

They are out buying some things. And at the lower scale they get food and meds from state programs so they do have a bit of CASH to spend, as the necessities are being paid out.

I personally got sick of Comcast raising their bill. When my cable bill for digital hit $70/month, and the REASON Comcast gave was improvments on VOP and Internet I cancelled cable. (TV service goes up for improvments to things unrelated to TV?). I was glad I have the OTA option. Even Comcasts basic "over the air reception service is $17/month)


<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> > When you think about it, why do the New York stations
> > need a super-tall antenna site. They probably can
> > cover the area for which they program..New York City..with
>
> > a much more modest array than something 2000 feet up.
>
> I thought the whole idea for a super-tall antenna was do
> deal with the problem of all the tall buildings in
> Manhattan, as this was a consideration when the WTC was
> built.
>
> > Are any of the TV stations having a problem from the ESB?
>
> I am reasonably sure that there are space issues, so you
> cannot have all the TV and radio transmitters that were on
> the WTC on the ESB.
>

Scott Fybush is far more expert on this subject, but I
doubt that any transmitter in Manhattan will prevent
multipath problems for residents of that area.

I recall that during the construction of the WTC several
TV stations put UHF translators on the air to serve areas
to the north of New York. The WTC towers started to cause
objectionable reflections to the north.

I don't think all the New York broadcasters have to be
at one site, especially radio. If a station serves only
New York City it doesn't need to be 2000-feet up. Many
buildings were used for New York broadcasters over the
years.
 
> > > Think of this,how many people do you know who are still
> > > relying on a rooftop antenna for TV shows,I will bet the
>
> > > answer is NONE,why waste the money for an analog system
> > > anyway,at the least put up a digital only system.
>
> Actually there are two problems with this.
>
> First is the subject of multiple sets. I don't know anyone
> with Cable or Satellite TV that doesn't have at least one
> set in their bedroom or den or someplace that has the old
> rabbit ears on it.
>
> Also a majority of poor and poverty people STILL do not have
> cable. And because minorities such as blacks and latinos
> tend to have less income they fall into that category MORE
> often.
>
> So you are disenfranchinsing poor people.
>
> So you might think "why should advertisers care about poor
> people? They aren't out buying things."
>
> They are out buying some things. And at the lower scale they
> get food and meds from state programs so they do have a bit
> of CASH to spend, as the necessities are being paid out.
>
> I personally got sick of Comcast raising their bill. When my
> cable bill for digital hit $70/month, and the REASON Comcast
> gave was improvments on VOP and Internet I cancelled cable.
> (TV service goes up for improvments to things unrelated to
> TV?). I was glad I have the OTA option. Even Comcasts basic
> "over the air reception service is $17/month)
>

The issue of over-the-air television broadcasting is a
very interesting one because of the issues you raised
as well as others. Although the analog transmitters are
due to go off the air soon, I don't think that video
distribution will be the sole province of the DT stations.
I think companies other than conventional broadcasters
will create new distribution channels using broadband
services, including 3G cellular. This will create opportunities
for new broadcasters in much the same way that the Internet
is giving birth to new sources of audio distribution.
Hopefully this will break the virtual strangehold that
FCC licensees have on wireless video distribution.

Several years ago an innovative company used paging
services to distribute TV program schedules to your
TV. A little set-top box received that data and
displayed it on your TV. In addition to program
schedules, the service offered a type of news and
sports wire. The service worked very well. However,
a competing company both them out and took them
off the air.
 
This is an example of the blind leading the blind. Not one post here contains a bona fide answer to the question. Instead of writing to each other, I'm sure a note to the CE's of any of these stations would shed more light on the subject.
FYI- All NYC TV is now coming from the Empire State Building, except channel 68 which lost it's top of the mast position to the diplexed signal from WNBC and WNYW Channels 4 and 5. This antenna suffered some damage in the installation process and is taken off the air from time to time for repairs. Channels 7,9,11 and 13 are diplexed. Channel 31 recetnly installed a new antenna and transmitter there and Channel 41 constructed a new transmitter on a different floor. Most of the stations are running some sort of DTV programming, while there has been little demand for it in the market place.
As far a a new "supertower"..don't count on it. The Freedom Tower is tied up in endless argumentation and with most people now getting their TV from sources like cable of satellite, the urgency of terrestrial tranmission lessens.
Unless a taller building is constructed posing a serious signal blocking issue, Empire may be "it." Most of the stations on Empire, if not all, are now running at prescribed ERP. Channel 68 is at Conde Naste. All of the big FMs are also on Empire....again a full power. WKCR, not a major player by any means, is at Conde Naste...along with some FM back ups.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom