Wilmington DTV transition is here

[jal41]

With Wilmington only having mild damage as a result of Tropical Storm Hanna, I wonder if the analog shutoff scheduled for tomorrow (Monday) will occur as planned.

I was watching The Communicators on C-SPAN (which was taped Thursday, before the storm hit, and aired Saturday), and it sounded like everyone from the FCC to local government was ready to go.

Interesting tidbit - the city of Wilmington trained their firefighters to help install the digital boxes and fine tune antennas to help local residents. Sounds pretty out-of-whack, but given how the elderly and others could lose their lifeline to emergency information, it might not be a bad idea.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

It's officially on...this was posted today on the front page of the FCC's website:

9/7/08
Wilmington North Carolina DTV Transition Set for 12 Noon Monday September 8
Following a Sunday morning telephone conference call with Wilmington North Carolina broadcasters the FCC has confirmed that the digital television transition in that TV market will take place as scheduled on Monday September 8 at 12 noon.

 

[kenglish]

One hour and fifty-five minutes, and counting!

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

The folks at TV Newsday have an article this morning here:

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2008/09/08/daily.4/

But this part jumped out at me...

So, at noon (...) the analog program stream will be replaced with a message that the service is no longer available and the digital era will begin — at least until Oct. 1 when the test concludes and the analog returns for another short stay.

The message will also contain one last notice to viewers on how to get information about the switch.

I knew they weren't actually shutting off the analog transmitters today. I did not know that this was considered a "test", and that analog service in Wilmington would actually come back next month until the national transition...assuming this piece is correct.

 

[fortmill]

Wow--that's certainly some new information. Nothing I've read has said anything about the analog signals returning Oct. 1. What's the point in that---to encourage stragglers to wait it out for their good old analog signals? The article in yesterday's Charlotte Observer said the analog signals would stay on a month, with a card instructing viewers to tune to digital, and then disappear entirely. Someone, what's the real truth?

 

[tripinva]

The analog signals ARE NOT returning. All three (WWAY, WECT, WSFX) have filed silent STAs with the FCC, they intend to kill the analog signal completely and for good on 09/30/08.

- Trip

 

[kenglish]

Why did they use a "switch to Digital" switch?

Digital has already been on the air for years. They should have had a "switch OFF" of analog.
This just adds more confusion.

I told our management that, when it's our turn, we should have a huge, old-fashioned, dual knife switch. Label it "Analog TV", and ceremoniously pull it DOWN, to the OFF position.

 

[Markxxx]

Don't forget the political element, we have a very close presidental race. This matters, if the test goes sour, the analog signals aren't going any where. No politician is gonna take TV away from people, they won't even RISK the idea that TV could be taken away from anyone.

You think gay marriage is a huge issue? Try taking away people's TV.. LOL

This is why the "test" is preceived this way. They want to leave themselves room to manuever. Remember this is a voluntary test, the stations don't have to do this. And if one station chickens out it'll hurt the rest.

In any event testing in a heavily cabled market won't do much anyway, you might get a few problems here and there, but until the Feb shut off you won't know till it happens.

As you all know I can only get three TV stations in digital where I get 16+ in analog, so I'll have to fork over the $21/month for the basic level of cable or move. And there are 50 people in my building so it'll be interesting to see what's gonna happen.

Bottom line is election year, the TV stations will ALWAYS leave themselves with a backup plan.

 

[mjlarochelle]

There's another element to the DTV transition that I don't think anybody has brought up, and it's an environmental element. It takes a very large amount of electricity to power television transmitters, and it takes a lot more power to run UHF transmitters than it does VHF ones. For example, Channels 2-6 are allowed a maximum power of 100 kW video and Channels 7-13 are allowed up to 325 kW, but Channels 14-69 are allowed a maximum of 5,000 kW, if I'm not mistaken. Most stations are switching from VHF to UHF as part of the transition, which means a whole lot more electricity is going to get used to power TV transmitters.

With the number of people using cable and satellite, this seems very wasteful, especially when it comes to low-rated infomercial stations. Granted, many of those are already on UHF, but now we're adding major VHF stations to the UHF band. There should be a maximum number of cumulative watts for television markets; for example, if six stations maintain full power and meet but do not exceed the quota, then no other stations would be allowed in the area. Of course, this would be flexible depending on the size of the market. All markets under this model would be guaranteed five signals (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, PBS). Room would exist for Spanish stations in Hispanic markets, and additional English stations in larger markets. All other signals would exist as subchannels of existing stations. This would likely mean networks like CW and MNTV would be able to have HD signals in larger markets, but be limited to SD signals on subchannels in smaller markets.

 

[kenglish]

I don't think that all the TV stations in a given market use as much power as a single, big industrial plant. It takes about 250 KW or less to make 50 KW of RF that becomes 1 MW of radiated power. Most DTV stations are running far less power than their analog equivalents would.

And, Mark....if there are 50 people in your building who can't get TV signals, why not put up a common antenna?

 

[jal41]

There's another element to the DTV transition that I don't think anybody has brought up, and it's an environmental element. It takes a very large amount of electricity to power television transmitters, and it takes a lot more power to run UHF transmitters than it does VHF ones. For example, Channels 2-6 are allowed a maximum power of 100 kW video and Channels 7-13 are allowed up to 325 kW, but Channels 14-69 are allowed a maximum of 5,000 kW, if I'm not mistaken. Most stations are switching from VHF to UHF as part of the transition, which means a whole lot more electricity is going to get used to power TV transmitters.

Yeah...but when Channels 2-6 have so much interference in them they cannot really be used...you might as well pay a power bill for a Channel 39 at 1000kW with 1,000,000 viewers recieving your signal then one at Channel 2 at 50kW with only 20,000 viewers able to recieve because the signal has so much interference in it.

Keep in mind the UHF band is much larger than VHF (over three times larger)...so that is where everyone has had to go. Also, digital requires much less power than analog to operate, so there will be major savings in comparision to if they were operating in the same channel space in analog.

With the number of people using cable and satellite, this seems very wasteful, especially when it comes to low-rated infomercial stations. Granted, many of those are already on UHF, but now we're adding major VHF stations to the UHF band. There should be a maximum number of cumulative watts for television markets; for example, if six stations maintain full power and meet but do not exceed the quota, then no other stations would be allowed in the area. Of course, this would be flexible depending on the size of the market. All markets under this model would be guaranteed five signals (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, PBS). Room would exist for Spanish stations in Hispanic markets, and additional English stations in larger markets. All other signals would exist as subchannels of existing stations. This would likely mean networks like CW and MNTV would be able to have HD signals in larger markets, but be limited to SD signals on subchannels in smaller markets.

If such a scheme were proposed...lawsuits would have it tied up in the courts for years.

If anything, the duopoly rules need to be discontinued without grandfathering (You have a duopoly...you will have to sell one of your stations). 2 HD signals can go on one DTV station (up to 8 SD depending on configuration). Require cable and satellite providers to carry two signals per station, and the idea of a duopoly is quite moot. That would be the way to put more stations on the air.

 

[tripinva]

As I understand it, the digital transmitters are actually much more efficient than the analog ones are.

Consider this. WFMY in Greensboro operates their analog transmitter at 100 kW ERP. According to their license with the FCC, the transmitter itself uses 33.4 kW to generate that power. WFMY-DT is a 1000 kW ERP signal on channel 51. According to the license with the FCC, it requires 61 kW. That's less than double the amount of power the analog uses, and there are many stations that don't use a full 1000 kW.

To not even max out a UHF on analog, I used WMYV-48 in Greensboro, they have 1700 kW ERP, and that requires about 96 kW. WMYV-DT covers roughly the same area, also on UHF, operates at 700 kW ERP, but the transmitter only makes 18.6 kW.

I think we'll find that digital uses less power overall than analog does.

- Trip

 

[tripinva]

You can put two HDs on a station but that doesn't mean they'll look good. What good is two HD feeds if they're a mess of blocks?

If you go and ask anyone in the coverage area of a station who has two HDs on a single channel, they'll tell you how horrible it looks.

Same for SD, 6 is probably about as high as you want to go, if even that high. There's only so much you can jam in a digital stream before it all starts to look like crap.

- Trip

 

[KML0224]

WFSB-DT (CBS) in Hartford is running their SD/network HD on 3-1, their SD "CBS 3" service for Springfield, MA on 3-2, their SD Eyewitness News NOW service on 3-3 and who knows what in SD [which looks AWFUL] on 3-4. Note to WFSB and Merideth Broadcasting: Get rid of whatever it it on 3-4 now! You're wasting bandwidth!

Now then...any early reports available yet on the transition in Wilmington?

 

[TexasTom]

There's another element to the DTV transition that I don't think anybody has brought up, and it's an environmental element. It takes a very large amount of electricity to power television transmitters, and it takes a lot more power to run UHF transmitters than it does VHF ones. For example, Channels 2-6 are allowed a maximum power of 100 kW video and Channels 7-13 are allowed up to 325 kW, but Channels 14-69 are allowed a maximum of 5,000 kW, if I'm not mistaken. Most stations are switching from VHF to UHF as part of the transition, which means a whole lot more electricity is going to get used to power TV transmitters.

With the number of people using cable and satellite, this seems very wasteful, especially when it comes to low-rated infomercial stations. Granted, many of those are already on UHF, but now we're adding major VHF stations to the UHF band. There should be a maximum number of cumulative watts for television markets; for example, if six stations maintain full power and meet but do not exceed the quota, then no other stations would be allowed in the area. Of course, this would be flexible depending on the size of the market. All markets under this model would be guaranteed five signals (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, PBS). Room would exist for Spanish stations in Hispanic markets, and additional English stations in larger markets. All other signals would exist as subchannels of existing stations. This would likely mean networks like CW and MNTV would be able to have HD signals in larger markets, but be limited to SD signals on subchannels in smaller markets.

This has to qualify as one of the sillier ideas that I've seen proposed around here.

As already noted by others, the actual amount of power used by a UHF TV transmitter is much lower than the effective radiated power of a station. And freezing out any new competition by putting a limit on the "amount of watts" that could be broadcast in a given market is both anti-competitive and pointless. If we're looking to conserve power, there are far larger targets to go after.

Now, the idea proposed by "jal41" to disallow duopolies is a lot more appealing...that would increase competition instead of decreasing it. Especially since the second station in most duopolies just seems to end up as a dumping ground for syndicated programs that the ownership doesn't want to place on their "main" station.

 

[dhett]

Now, the idea proposed by "jal41" to disallow duopolies is a lot more appealing...that would increase competition instead of decreasing it. Especially since the second station in most duopolies just seems to end up as a dumping ground for syndicated programs that the ownership doesn't want to place on their "main" station.

Except it doesn't always work that way in real life. Take Tucson, Arizona for instance. KGUN owner Journal Broadcast recently got a waiver to purchase KWBA Sierra Vista. It's the second duopoly (KMSB/KTTU is the other) in the market that is technically too small for two duopolies. Once everything is completed, KWBA will move out of its north Tucson storefront facilities and into KGUN's east Tucson studio, saving money. KWBA is supposed to start a newscast, which they never had before. There's no question in my mind that KWBA would have shut down, leaving Tucson with one fewer TV station, and Sierra Vista without its only full-power station (their only other stations are a KVOA translator, a KHRR translator, and a TBN station whose signal is nearly non-existent). KWBA was a failing station, and rules outlawing duopolies would have sealed its doom.

 

[w9wi]

As I understand it, the digital transmitters are actually much more efficient than the analog ones are.

Consider this. WFMY in Greensboro operates their analog transmitter at 100 kW ERP. According to their license with the FCC, the transmitter itself uses 33.4 kW to generate that power. WFMY-DT is a 1000 kW ERP signal on channel 51. According to the license with the FCC, it requires 61 kW. That's less than double the amount of power the analog uses, and there are many stations that don't use a full 1000 kW.

To not even max out a UHF on analog, I used WMYV-48 in Greensboro, they have 1700 kW ERP, and that requires about 96 kW. WMYV-DT covers roughly the same area, also on UHF, operates at 700 kW ERP, but the transmitter only makes 18.6 kW.

I think we'll find that digital uses less power overall than analog does.

The transmitters aren't any more efficient.

On the other hand, UHF *antennas* have much higher gain than VHF antennas. It takes fewer watts into the antenna to deliver a given ERP at UHF because of the higher antenna gain.

To counterbalance that, considerably higher ERPs are required at UHF to provide reliable fringe-area service.

And, while an engineer with UHF experience is going to have to elaborate, it's my understanding that UHF transmitters are actually considerably *less* efficient than VHF rigs, in terms of how many watts of 60Hz utility power are consumed to deliver each watt of RF to the antenna. And, a "pulser" circuit that achieved something like 10-20% utility power savings with analog transmitters doesn't work with digital.

To counter-counterbalance that..... there have been a lot of improvements in transmitter design & efficiency over the years, a new transmitter will be more efficient than a 20-year-old transmitter of the same power operating on the same channel...

WMYV-DT is directional. (their analog isn't) For directional stations, power is measured in the direction of maximum radiation - the power in any other direction will be equal to or less than the quoted ERP. A directional antenna works by concentrating the available power in the desired direction.

So it takes less power from the transmitter to achieve 700kw ERP from a directional antenna than it does to achieve it from a non-directional antenna. Because with the non-directional antenna, that 700kw must be delivered in all directions, 360-degrees around the tower. With the directional antenna, it only needs to be delivered around part of the circle; in other directions, you don't deliver as much RF.

 

[KML0224]

OK then...correct me if I'm wrong: Here in Hartford/New Haven, WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 analog of Hartford has always had a visual ERP of 5 million watts (minus any recent transmitter work at Rattlesnake Mountain). WFSB-DT (CBS) channel 33 digital of Hartford is listed as 1 million watts. Is that the maximum that digital UHF will be using?

 

[dhett]

Yes and no. 1 MW is the maximum value you will see for a UHF DTV station, vs. 5 MW for analog, but the measurements are different. Engineering types correct me if I'm wrong here, but analog is measured by maximum power, while digital is measured by average power.

 

[vibe]

maybe the experiemnt/transition could have been conducted after hurricane season.