• 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

WLBT-TV/WDAM-TV DTV

D

DeadElvis

Interesting...

WLBT-TV/Jackson, currently operating on channel 7, is apparently unhappy with its DTV coverage (as many VHF DTVs are). They have asked to move to channel 30 with 535 kW. This should significantly improve their OTA coverage.

Co-owned WDAM/Hattiesburg has asked to move back to channel 7 with 75 kW (which is actually a lot of power under the new regime). The posting I saw said this was "to facilitate WLBT's move to 30." I am a little puzzled by this, as WDAM is on channel 28, but it's possible I'm missing something.

Both stations are asking for this change to be allowed immediately under an STA. We'll see how it goes.

DE
 
DeadElvis said:
Interesting...

WLBT-TV/Jackson, currently operating on channel 7, is apparently unhappy with its DTV coverage (as many VHF DTVs are). They have asked to move to channel 30 with 535 kW. This should significantly improve their OTA coverage.

Co-owned WDAM/Hattiesburg has asked to move back to channel 7 with 75 kW (which is actually a lot of power under the new regime). The posting I saw said this was "to facilitate WLBT's move to 30." I am a little puzzled by this, as WDAM is on channel 28, but it's possible I'm missing something.

Both stations are asking for this change to be allowed immediately under an STA. We'll see how it goes.

DE
Click to expand...


As an aside, how would this affect LPTV Channel 7 in Gautier-Pascagoula? When I was in Ocean Springs, I noticed that on my 13" portable (non-cable), there was a constant fight between WDAM and this LPTV station for Channel 7.
 
[/quote]


As an aside, how would this affect LPTV Channel 7 in Gautier-Pascagoula? When I was in Ocean Springs, I noticed that on my 13" portable (non-cable), there was a constant fight between WDAM and this LPTV station for Channel 7.
[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but WDAM is digital and the LPTV is analog, so there shouldn't be any interference.
 


As an aside, how would this affect LPTV Channel 7 in Gautier-Pascagoula? When I was in Ocean Springs, I noticed that on my 13" portable (non-cable), there was a constant fight between WDAM and this LPTV station for Channel 7.
[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but WDAM is digital and the LPTV is analog, so there shouldn't be any interference.
[/quote]

Depends on how much power WDAM plans to run on DTV channel 7, but if there was interference in analog there will probably be interference in digital. The appearance of that interference will change -- the LPTV will appear weaker than it actually is.

(I concur with Watt, regarding the transmitter swap)
 
I am sure y'all are right that the transmitter trade issue is what's involved. But...

It does seem like a very flimsy argument to imply that saving the dollars for a transmitter rises to the level of public interest required to change the Table of Allocations. But, these are tough times, and the industry is certainly in flux.

I assume someone has run a cost/benefit analysis that shows they'll spend less in legal and engineering fees than they would for a new transmitter for Jackson. Professional fees get expensive.

DE
 
DeadElvis said:
It does seem like a very flimsy argument to imply that saving the dollars for a transmitter rises to the level of public interest required to change the Table of Allocations. But, these are tough times, and the industry is certainly in flux.
Click to expand...

What's this garbage about broadcasters serving the public interest? ;)
 
DeadElvis said:
I am sure y'all are right that the transmitter trade issue is what's involved.  But...

It does seem like a very flimsy argument to imply that saving the dollars for a transmitter rises to the level of public interest required to change the Table of Allocations.  But, these are tough times, and the industry is certainly in flux.

I assume someone has run a cost/benefit analysis that shows they'll spend less in legal and engineering fees than they would for a new transmitter for Jackson.  Professional fees get expensive.

DE
Click to expand...

A little speculation and a little knowledge, but here goes...

UHF rig of that size new would come in at around 600K. I think they have the ch-9 pre transition box as well as newer ch-7 Harris so they might be able to make the change real easy, same ch-7 antenna at Hattiesburg. The big cost will be the larger line, new antenna and installation at Raymond not to mention the logistics of it all, Raycom has the money.  Also consider at some point they need to get the old ch-3 antenna and lines down. Might all fit into one nice package with the savings being UHF and VHF transmitter as swap and not having to install new antenna and line in Hattiesburg. Consultant like DLR might get 15 to 25k to draw the application, DC letter street legal cost…. Who knows but figure $800+ per hour. It might be a total million dollar fix that could be 2.5 million if they didn’t have the hardware on-hand. They might have had this as contingency plan.

The FCC has and is taking a lot of heat over the reduced coverage issue from licensees and the Hill. More than willing to bend over backwards and STA's being granted almost instantly.
 
no one has mentioned the unintended cost of relocating WGBC which is on Digital channel 31. As it stands right now, if WLBT goes ahead with relocating its signal Both signals will overlap around Eastern Scott County and probably a little bit for Leake, Smith,Jasper, and Newton county. I guess that's the price for the improvement of signal for the Jackson Metro Area. If you concerned about this someone needs to get to the FCC promptly and complain.
 
So my question is... a hypothetical situation, of course... what about us SHMUCKS who are in the fringes of WDAM's DT on 28, and went out of our way to purchase and install an EIGHT-BAY UHF ANTENNA, along with a booster... and restrung the coax in our attics in order to (unsuccessfully) get a lock on the signal... all with the promise that WDAM was going to upgrade ASSUMEDLY on channel 28? I'm hoping that I'll still be able to get a lock on the VHF signal, but I can only guess that it won't be nearly as good as it should be. Or am I assuming too much here? All I know is that with EVERY OTHER STATION servicing the Hattiesburg/Laurel market being in the UHF band (with WLOX's return LONG AGO to Ch. 39), wouldn't it be MORE OF A SERVICE to the viewers to do the upgrade on 28 that WDAM had already filed for?

Ugh.
 
No... the VHF channel 7 at 75KW will well outperform the channel 28 that could only go to a little over
300K directional. WTOK in Meridian's 40KW on channel 11 works very well. They also have another CP
to go to 90KW.
 
WLBT is finally going to do it on Jan 14, 2010. Yes they are going to keep the old tower which means they are 1875 ft and some more antenna height. For this to be the highest structure in Mississippi it had to keep the old tower. This also means that their transmitter will be transmitting at 500KW which will help their signal. You can read about its plans at WLBT.com. Once this is done they will move the workers to Hattiesburg to install a new transmitter and reinstall the old antenna. WDAM's management says that will take them to mid February before they are switched back over to channel 7.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom