I was looking at the FCC website and saw where WUFX has applied for HDTV but its on the same channel 35, instead of putting HD on a different channel. Does that mean they will simply pull the plug on the old 35? By the time they get it on the air it will be time to shut down the old analog stations anyway. Also, what will become of all the low power stations, are they switching to HD? I havent seen anything on that subject. And one more. Whats the deal with the new Ch. 34 in Magee? haven't heard anything on that one for a while. Looks like they would do just as well to sign on as HDTV because they would have to scrap the analog in a few years anyway.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WUFX-HDTV
- Thread starter Pat2
- Start date
> Does that mean they will
> simply pull the plug on the old 35?
Yes, that's exactly what it means. Note, too, it's a pretty modest application. I am not sure what's up with that -- in its current form, it would not deliver much of a useable DTV signal inside Jackson. Perhaps, all they are conserned about is Cable Must-Carry. Who knows?
But, those of us who have recived DTV over air can tell you that DTV receivers are not very forgiving. They want LOTS of signal, and drop out when there is multipath.
>Also, what will become of all the low
> power stations, are they switching to HD? I havent seen
> anything on that subject.
Well, that's been a contentious issue since the whole DTV thing came up (BTW: it's not technically correct to use the phrase HDTV in all cases. Not all digital TV streams are High-def. In fact, most aren't. But, that's a discussion for another time). LPTVs got no second channel for DTV use. Most will convert to DTV at some point in the future; some will shut down, I expect. I read recently that a few have already applied to make the jump.
But, the signal issue will be a big problem for LPTVs. If you can't get them analog, it'll be tough to get them DTV. I have two stations here that are DTV, but running on temporary low power. I can't get them AT ALL, although they are both only about 10 miles away +/-.
> what's the deal
> with the new Ch. 34 in Magee?
They have a Minor Change app. currently at FCC. It raises antenna height, takes the antenna pattern directional, and lowers power just a bit. It also slightly jogs the tower just a bit west, but it's probably on the same parcel of land -- it's probably just a housekeeping correction.
There are some machinations about its DTV channel, but is certainly looks like it will be on 34.
I see they are advertising for AEs. So, does that mean something is about to happen (it's not on yet, is it?).
But, I don't know much about TV. This ain't my thing.
DE
> simply pull the plug on the old 35?
Yes, that's exactly what it means. Note, too, it's a pretty modest application. I am not sure what's up with that -- in its current form, it would not deliver much of a useable DTV signal inside Jackson. Perhaps, all they are conserned about is Cable Must-Carry. Who knows?
But, those of us who have recived DTV over air can tell you that DTV receivers are not very forgiving. They want LOTS of signal, and drop out when there is multipath.
>Also, what will become of all the low
> power stations, are they switching to HD? I havent seen
> anything on that subject.
Well, that's been a contentious issue since the whole DTV thing came up (BTW: it's not technically correct to use the phrase HDTV in all cases. Not all digital TV streams are High-def. In fact, most aren't. But, that's a discussion for another time). LPTVs got no second channel for DTV use. Most will convert to DTV at some point in the future; some will shut down, I expect. I read recently that a few have already applied to make the jump.
But, the signal issue will be a big problem for LPTVs. If you can't get them analog, it'll be tough to get them DTV. I have two stations here that are DTV, but running on temporary low power. I can't get them AT ALL, although they are both only about 10 miles away +/-.
> what's the deal
> with the new Ch. 34 in Magee?
They have a Minor Change app. currently at FCC. It raises antenna height, takes the antenna pattern directional, and lowers power just a bit. It also slightly jogs the tower just a bit west, but it's probably on the same parcel of land -- it's probably just a housekeeping correction.
There are some machinations about its DTV channel, but is certainly looks like it will be on 34.
I see they are advertising for AEs. So, does that mean something is about to happen (it's not on yet, is it?).
But, I don't know much about TV. This ain't my thing.
DE
> > what's the deal
> > with the new Ch. 34 in Magee?
>
> They have a Minor Change app. currently at FCC. It raises
> antenna height, takes the antenna pattern directional, and
> lowers power just a bit. It also slightly jogs the tower
> just a bit west, but it's probably on the same parcel of
> land -- it's probably just a housekeeping correction.
>
> There are some machinations about its DTV channel, but is
> certainly looks like it will be on 34.
>
> I see they are advertising for AEs. So, does that mean
> something is about to happen (it's not on yet, is it?).
There were newspaper ads for the new TV back in the latter part of the summer. Some posts here a while back had a September debut. I'm not sure if Hurricane Katrina caused this delay.
<P ID="signature">______________
"...and the countdown continues until the neanderthals that govern college football do something about their pathetic postseason."--Tim Brando, Sporting News Radio</P>
> > with the new Ch. 34 in Magee?
>
> They have a Minor Change app. currently at FCC. It raises
> antenna height, takes the antenna pattern directional, and
> lowers power just a bit. It also slightly jogs the tower
> just a bit west, but it's probably on the same parcel of
> land -- it's probably just a housekeeping correction.
>
> There are some machinations about its DTV channel, but is
> certainly looks like it will be on 34.
>
> I see they are advertising for AEs. So, does that mean
> something is about to happen (it's not on yet, is it?).
There were newspaper ads for the new TV back in the latter part of the summer. Some posts here a while back had a September debut. I'm not sure if Hurricane Katrina caused this delay.
<P ID="signature">______________
"...and the countdown continues until the neanderthals that govern college football do something about their pathetic postseason."--Tim Brando, Sporting News Radio</P>
I don't have an HDTV set yet but from what I understand the signal is either all or nothing. Just like satelite, cell phones or anything else digital. That makes it difficult for us folks who live out in the sticks or in apartments where they won't let you put up an antenna. I wonder why they even bother anymore, I hear people all the time saying they can't watch TV because they had their cable or dish turned off. Funny thing, I've been watching TV all my life and never paid a dime for it. Another pet peeve of mine is most of the people that have HDTV sets aren't watching actual HDTV stations because half of these TV's dont' have a HD tuner in them. And of course you have the idiots who have 4:3 pictures displayed on 16:9 sets which make everyone look fat. That makes me cringe everytime I see that.
G
gooberj
Guest
> > > what's the deal
> > > with the new Ch. 34 in Magee?
> >
I got an e-mail from one of the visitors of this site about a week or so ago saying they were suppose to be on the air sometime in January...<P ID="signature">______________
Deep In The Heart of Dixie
Alabama/East TN/Kentucky/Mississippi</P>
> > > with the new Ch. 34 in Magee?
> >
I got an e-mail from one of the visitors of this site about a week or so ago saying they were suppose to be on the air sometime in January...<P ID="signature">______________
Deep In The Heart of Dixie
Alabama/East TN/Kentucky/Mississippi</P>
> That makes it difficult
> for us folks who live out in the sticks or in apartments
> where they won't let you put up an antenna.
Actually, there are very few places that can prohibit installation of a recieve-only antenna or small ( >1m ) TV dish for video programming.
In 1996, in the much-discussed Telecom Act of 1996, Congress made clear that the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to regulating such antennas. It also stated its intention that installation of such antennas should be encouraged.
Subsequent rulemaking by the FCC eliminates almost all restrictions on small TV dishes and broadcast TV-band antennas. Rulemaking in 1999 clarifies that this even applies to renters and apartment dwellers if the renter has an "exclusive use" space upon which to mount the antenna. Such "exclusive use" space in an apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only the renter has regular access to.
Of course, if you want a satellite dish at your apartment, you'll need a clear shot to the south. If your balcony is north, tough luck.
All this makes sense, of course. Since digital video has so much trouble with what the engineering geeks call "cliff effect," the FCC wanted to remove obstacles to the new technology -- the main one being reception problems with the end-user.
These regs only apply to video programming. Amateur antennas, and the like, are not included.
But, again, TV is not what I do. This is outside my areas of expertise.
DE
> for us folks who live out in the sticks or in apartments
> where they won't let you put up an antenna.
Actually, there are very few places that can prohibit installation of a recieve-only antenna or small ( >1m ) TV dish for video programming.
In 1996, in the much-discussed Telecom Act of 1996, Congress made clear that the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to regulating such antennas. It also stated its intention that installation of such antennas should be encouraged.
Subsequent rulemaking by the FCC eliminates almost all restrictions on small TV dishes and broadcast TV-band antennas. Rulemaking in 1999 clarifies that this even applies to renters and apartment dwellers if the renter has an "exclusive use" space upon which to mount the antenna. Such "exclusive use" space in an apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only the renter has regular access to.
Of course, if you want a satellite dish at your apartment, you'll need a clear shot to the south. If your balcony is north, tough luck.
All this makes sense, of course. Since digital video has so much trouble with what the engineering geeks call "cliff effect," the FCC wanted to remove obstacles to the new technology -- the main one being reception problems with the end-user.
These regs only apply to video programming. Amateur antennas, and the like, are not included.
But, again, TV is not what I do. This is outside my areas of expertise.
DE
> > That makes it difficult
> > for us folks who live out in the sticks or in apartments
> > where they won't let you put up an antenna.
>
> Actually, there are very few places that can prohibit
> installation of a recieve-only antenna or small ( >1m ) TV
> dish for video programming.
>
> In 1996, in the much-discussed Telecom Act of 1996, Congress
> made clear that the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction when it
> comes to regulating such antennas. It also stated its
> intention that installation of such antennas should be
> encouraged.
>
> Subsequent rulemaking by the FCC eliminates almost all
> restrictions on small TV dishes and broadcast TV-band
> antennas. Rulemaking in 1999 clarifies that this even
> applies to renters and apartment dwellers if the renter has
> an "exclusive use" space upon which to mount the antenna.
> Such "exclusive use" space in an apartment may include a
> balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only the renter has
> regular access to.
>
> Of course, if you want a satellite dish at your apartment,
> you'll need a clear shot to the south. If your balcony is
> north, tough luck.
>
> All this makes sense, of course. Since digital video has so
> much trouble with what the engineering geeks call "cliff
> effect," the FCC wanted to remove obstacles to the new
> technology -- the main one being reception problems with the
> end-user.
>
> These regs only apply to video programming. Amateur
> antennas, and the like, are not included.
>
> But, again, TV is not what I do. This is outside my areas
> of expertise.
>
> DE
>
I was mainly refering to outside TV antennas. They don't mind if you put a pair of rabbit ears in the window. When I was in college we had to use rabbit ears or get cable. My dorm room was across from the gymnasium and the signals bounced off of the brick wall and caused double images, no matter how hard we tried the reception still sucked. We could only pick up WJTV clear but the tower was across the highway and was so strong we could pick it up no antenna at all.
> > for us folks who live out in the sticks or in apartments
> > where they won't let you put up an antenna.
>
> Actually, there are very few places that can prohibit
> installation of a recieve-only antenna or small ( >1m ) TV
> dish for video programming.
>
> In 1996, in the much-discussed Telecom Act of 1996, Congress
> made clear that the FCC has exclusive jurisdiction when it
> comes to regulating such antennas. It also stated its
> intention that installation of such antennas should be
> encouraged.
>
> Subsequent rulemaking by the FCC eliminates almost all
> restrictions on small TV dishes and broadcast TV-band
> antennas. Rulemaking in 1999 clarifies that this even
> applies to renters and apartment dwellers if the renter has
> an "exclusive use" space upon which to mount the antenna.
> Such "exclusive use" space in an apartment may include a
> balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only the renter has
> regular access to.
>
> Of course, if you want a satellite dish at your apartment,
> you'll need a clear shot to the south. If your balcony is
> north, tough luck.
>
> All this makes sense, of course. Since digital video has so
> much trouble with what the engineering geeks call "cliff
> effect," the FCC wanted to remove obstacles to the new
> technology -- the main one being reception problems with the
> end-user.
>
> These regs only apply to video programming. Amateur
> antennas, and the like, are not included.
>
> But, again, TV is not what I do. This is outside my areas
> of expertise.
>
> DE
>
I was mainly refering to outside TV antennas. They don't mind if you put a pair of rabbit ears in the window. When I was in college we had to use rabbit ears or get cable. My dorm room was across from the gymnasium and the signals bounced off of the brick wall and caused double images, no matter how hard we tried the reception still sucked. We could only pick up WJTV clear but the tower was across the highway and was so strong we could pick it up no antenna at all.
> I was mainly refering to outside TV antennas. They don't
> mind if you put a pair of rabbit ears in the window.
That's the point. The landlord no longer has the ability to stop you from installing an OUTDOOR TV antenna. In fact, you may even put up a small pole and go above the roof line, if necessary.
And, since this is federal law, there is little state law or local ordinances can do to upset this apple cart.
There are some limitations, and your actual mileage may vary. But, you have no doubt seen DBS dishes on balconies, etc. That's what this section of the rules is all about.
Of course, landlords can be sticky, and often don't know the law. But, in my primary line of work, people rarely mess with me. I suspect many landlords would not want me as a tenant.
> We could only pick up WJTV clear...
When I lived in Jackson (and, it's been a while) Channel 16 seemed to have the densest signal in town. That makes sense, of course, since the transmitter was just spittin' distance from MetroCenter. WLBT's signal was the worst; it improved a bit when they replaced the antenna.
DE
> mind if you put a pair of rabbit ears in the window.
That's the point. The landlord no longer has the ability to stop you from installing an OUTDOOR TV antenna. In fact, you may even put up a small pole and go above the roof line, if necessary.
And, since this is federal law, there is little state law or local ordinances can do to upset this apple cart.
There are some limitations, and your actual mileage may vary. But, you have no doubt seen DBS dishes on balconies, etc. That's what this section of the rules is all about.
Of course, landlords can be sticky, and often don't know the law. But, in my primary line of work, people rarely mess with me. I suspect many landlords would not want me as a tenant.
> We could only pick up WJTV clear...
When I lived in Jackson (and, it's been a while) Channel 16 seemed to have the densest signal in town. That makes sense, of course, since the transmitter was just spittin' distance from MetroCenter. WLBT's signal was the worst; it improved a bit when they replaced the antenna.
DE
Re: channel 48
> Why didn't channel 48 in Natchez ever move its tower like
> they said they would. It was supposed to be able to get a
> signal into Jackson with Fox after WDBD switched to WB.
> After Fox 35 came on the air that seems to have been
> forgotten.
>
Probably because the people who own WNTZ also own WUFX (look up the company ownership records, the same two guys own both stations under different corporation names). Simpler to own a station that was being already built in the market than to have to build (I beleive it was) a tower and transmitter closer to Jackson.
That and WNTZ is still providing FOX programming for SW Mississippi and Central Louisiana (thru translators for most of Central Louisiana) and moving would possibly cause problems with the FCC on the translators.
RFLA
> Why didn't channel 48 in Natchez ever move its tower like
> they said they would. It was supposed to be able to get a
> signal into Jackson with Fox after WDBD switched to WB.
> After Fox 35 came on the air that seems to have been
> forgotten.
>
Probably because the people who own WNTZ also own WUFX (look up the company ownership records, the same two guys own both stations under different corporation names). Simpler to own a station that was being already built in the market than to have to build (I beleive it was) a tower and transmitter closer to Jackson.
That and WNTZ is still providing FOX programming for SW Mississippi and Central Louisiana (thru translators for most of Central Louisiana) and moving would possibly cause problems with the FCC on the translators.
RFLA
> > > > what's the deal
> > > > with the new Ch. 34 in Magee?
> > >
> I got an e-mail from one of the visitors of this site about
> a week or so ago saying they were suppose to be on the air
> sometime in January...
>
That sounds possible, especially since the website for WXMS-LP has been changed to remove all references to UPN affiliation and shows. It appears that WXMS is gearing up to be a 100% independent station ("Jackson's Own") once the cutover occurs.
http://www.gomiss.com/wxms_home.html
> > > > with the new Ch. 34 in Magee?
> > >
> I got an e-mail from one of the visitors of this site about
> a week or so ago saying they were suppose to be on the air
> sometime in January...
>
That sounds possible, especially since the website for WXMS-LP has been changed to remove all references to UPN affiliation and shows. It appears that WXMS is gearing up to be a 100% independent station ("Jackson's Own") once the cutover occurs.
http://www.gomiss.com/wxms_home.html
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.