WRGB acts to protect signal

[4dude]

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=654635

Television station worries about interference from proposed new radio stations

NISKAYUNA -- The Capital Region's CBS affiliate is worried that proposed new radio stations will disrupt reception of its TV broadcast and is asking federal regulatory officials to protect its signal. [more]

In a Dec. 14 letter to the FCC, WRGB says the 35 proposed stations would "create excessive and unnecessary interference to the reception of Channel 6 TV" and the station "respectfully requests that they be denied."

Why would they create INTERFERENCE??

Is the FCC going to allow all 35 on 87.75??

If this is the case,the FCC is more screwed up than i thought possible!

 

[tripinva]

Not surprising. Low-VHF absolutely sucks with digital TV signals, and any interference at all that they can avoid will help.

Who wants to take bets on how long after the transition before WRGB moves up the band?

- Trip

 

[4dude]

Well they are already @ 621.250 (channel 39 in digital) which should be well out of range of analog interference!

Ah well.. The FM band basically sucks in this area,only a few good stations...

I cant imagine 35 more pieces of crap filling up the band!

 

[tripinva]

Well they are already @ 621.250 (channel 39 in digital) which should be well out of range of analog interference!

Ah well.. The FM band basically sucks in this area,only a few good stations...

I cant imagine 35 more pieces of crap filling up the band!

Yes, but some GENIUS decided that channel 6 was better. I think that person had to be on drugs, but that's me.

I don't see what would have been wrong with a move to channel 8 (hey, if it works for WXXA and WBNG, why not WICZ and a WRGB on 8?).

- Trip

 

[necrat123]

Because of WNCE-CA 08 in Glens Falls. Class A stations are protected the same as full power stations.
Channel 8 would be very very directional, and right over the core of the television market.

The channel 6 "genius" applied for channel 6 to be located at the same HAAT as the current 39 license.

Channel 39 is a very crowded channel in the northeast, with a bunch of class A stations, and a few full power stations in the mix. Channel 6 will be clear-er, and being the highest VHF Low channel might not be so bad.

WRGB does have a right to object to those FM stations which have applied for the channels which need to protect WRGB's 6 allocation. A simple way around this, is to just apply for facilities with Vertical only facilities.
It's a work around that has been allowed in other markets to protect the Horizontally polarized channel 6 facilities.

 

[tripinva]

Because of WNCE-CA 08 in Glens Falls. Class A stations are protected the same as full power stations. Channel 8 would be very very directional, and right over the core of the television market.

Not so. The FCC did not protect other class A stations with regard to the digital transition. If they wanted channel 8 and for some reason the FCC suddenly reversed themselves (I've seen it happen on other issues), WRGB could always pay off WNCE-CA and move them.

Even so, would channel 23 have been any worse? If I had the time to sit down and look at a few maps, I'm sure I could find UHFs available more open than 39 (I understand moving off of 39) that still don't require sitting on low VHF.

- Trip