I just started receiving WYDN-DT 48, the Daystar affiliate licensed to Worcester, tonight with a good signal from my location in Pawtucket. They must have finally signed on today. The station operates on ch. 47 from the WBZ-TV tower in Needham, MA. Anyone else now receiving this station?
-
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
WYDN-TV 48
- Thread starter alg2468
- Start date
alg2468 said:
Yes.
Why is it fair that a Worcester station gets to have their transmitter at the same location as Boston stations? It seems to me that that gives them more of an audience than they are entitled to, as well as ripping off people west of Worcester who will probably now get a worse signal.
Paul
Paul
Not unheard of...here in Hartford/New Haven, WTXX-TV/DT (CW) has their analog channel 20 transmitter just south of Waterbury, very visible from the I-84/CT 8 junction. Their digital channel 12 transmitter and future digital channel 20 transmitter is/will be on Rattlesnake Mountain, to the west-southwest of Hartford. Those sites are about 20 miles or so from each other. While we're on the subject, what about WMTW-TV/DT (ABC) channel 8/digital 46 in Poland Spring, ME? I'm pretty certain that it's quite a distance from Mount Washington, NH (old analog) to the current site in Baldwin, ME near Lake Sebago (current analog and digital).
WMTW would have been expensive to convert to digital on Mount Washington, and given that the whole thing was run off a diesel generator 24/7/365, it's quite possible said generator would not be able to support the weather equipment, TV-8, two FMs, plus the living quarters for the engineer(s) up there, along with adding a DT-35. Plus getting the equipment up there and built out probably isn't a walk in the park either.
Especially in this age of satellite, I can't imagine there were a lot of people still relying on the sole TV station from Mount Washington anymore. It probably saved WMTW a lot of money by moving down.
- Trip
Especially in this age of satellite, I can't imagine there were a lot of people still relying on the sole TV station from Mount Washington anymore. It probably saved WMTW a lot of money by moving down.
- Trip
PaulRAnderson said:
There is nothing unfair about it. A full-service TV station is required to deliver its highest quality signal to its city of license, regardless of where the transmitter is located.
In the analog world, the signal degrades over distance and the highest quality signal, called city grade, covered a relatively small area, which is why the transmitter was located fairly close to, if not in, its city of license. The grade A signal, still a good signal, covered a larger area, and the grade B signal, which could be marginal, covered more area.
In the digital world, the signal is either there, or it isn't, and if it's there, it's a clear signal, better than the city grade analog. So now a transmitter can be farther from its city of license, and still provide a high quality signal to it.
Yeah, areas to the west of Worcester will lose out, but that's more than offset by the gains in the Boston area. And with this being a non-commercial allocation, the station's profits aren't an issue. Those losing coverage will west of Southbridge and Gardner all the way over to Springfield.
WYDN analog signal coverage (RECnet): http://recnet.com/cdbs/goo_curves.php?data=42.304|71.898|2290|246|64|40666|48|0|1
WYDN digital signal coverage (RECnet): http://recnet.com/cdbs/goo_curves.php?data=42.307|71.224|365|217|DT|40890|47|0|2
I can see your point about the transmitter, but TV stations don't really serve their city of license as much as their market. Since programs are exclusive to the market and not the COL it makes sense to cover the most possible area of your market with the greatest number of people.
This will max revenue and provide programing to the greatest number of people. Since stations can't air programs on other channels (generally they can't) it makes sense to think of TV stations as markets and not cities.
This will max revenue and provide programing to the greatest number of people. Since stations can't air programs on other channels (generally they can't) it makes sense to think of TV stations as markets and not cities.
dhett said:
Well, in theory. Remember, it's not just a matter of whether the signal is there or not...but also of what sort of antenna is needed to receive it.
We have a couple of stations (KMPX Decatur, TX and KTAQ Greenville, TX) who have managed to move their digital transmitter sites a good 60 miles from their city of license, and I suspect that it will be very difficult to get a decent signal on either of these stations in their respective COLs without using a very good antenna.
Yes, I had assumed use of a proper antenna. Perhaps it's just the terrain where I live, but I pull in clear DTV stations at 50+ miles onto my laptop with just the telescoping antenna that came with the TV card. My home is within line of sight of the Phoenix sticks at < 10 miles, so those are a no-brainer, but my one TV consistently pulls in a clear Tucson DTV station 95 miles away (KTTU) with just a set of rabbit ears sitting on a dresser.
Whale: I've never seen an analog signal surpass a DTV signal, except for at the fringes, and then the analog signal is snowy anyway.
Whale: I've never seen an analog signal surpass a DTV signal, except for at the fringes, and then the analog signal is snowy anyway.
- Status