Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron62
Great info Piggie and thanks for tacking on more news O-O. If you check Google for news on " DTV", stories have gone from "Transition is a success" to "reception problems reported in X location". Piggie, do you think the FCC is really to blame in all of this, or isn't it more of a responsibility of TV stations to make sure they get the correct broadcast power correct? |
This is my take on what happened knowing the inside story of two (one of thas 2 VHF transmitter). The story was the same.
The
FCC determined on paper (theoretical) the power needed and spacing needed by stations. They did a pretty good job on UHF. They totally blew it on VHF. On VHF they grossly over estimated the range of a station on VHF. This resulted in faulty data presented to the NAB and the stations around the country. Going on what the industry was telling them once the license application process was opened to the station in a flurry they all applied (see next section below). Remember this was all happening 7 to 9 years ago. Engineers really had little to read about it, there was little info and even less practical to go around. So the stations based their channel selections and power levels and spacing, from the data below.
Then as long as a station followed typical guidelines and didn't apply close spaced, the
FCC approved them. In areas like LA, CA and the NE corridor, the
FCC is STILL involved it reviewing applications for stations, mostly upgrades.
Anyway the
FCC approved not only insanely low VHF power levels but closer spacing because of the lower power levels. They didn't figure the man made and electrical noise on VHF was so much higher than UHF, that the distance the radio waves alone traveled was not the range of the station, like it is on UHF. For example at 20KW a station's radio waves actually get to the edge of the contour but it can't be locked to the edge of it's contour. More power is needed. But I am a little ahead of myself.
Once the
FCC opened up applying for
ATSC licenses, the gold rush was on. It was get it (a license) or forget it. They were all swooped up very fast. For two reasons. With channels 51-69 going by by in the auctions, the choices were fewer. Bands were crowed in many locations. Plus there was a fear of there being auctions later on the channels. There is still talk about this between station engineers. Despite the fact the other stations in town are competition, engineers typically avoid those politics and help and lend each other parts at the drop of a hat. Talk to each other on the phone etc. And the fear to hold channels they have on LP or CA or any type of license is strong, as they figure the next step is they will start bidding on the few remaining channels very soon. I personally don't think it will happen. There aren't enough empty channels left. In Florida there are about 4 premium channels with no co-channel, yet no one has applied. No one has the money to hedge on them.
So now VHF channels were all grabbed up and in my opinion too close together. Then once they discovered the problem of them covering their contour without enough power, they allowed stations to increase power.
This solved the problem in areas where there was little skip, but in areas of the country with frequent tropo, the damage was already done. They spaced the channels too close together. Now they allowed power increases so the close spaced channels interfere more.
There is no turning back now. Any idea they can just go back to their temp UHF channel is urban legend. The UHF band was already so crowed in Los Angeles for example, the temp channel was an out of core channel that is no longer after June 12th a TV channel. Others can't return to their UHF as some other station had applied for that channel post transition.
To summarize. Nearly a decade ago, the
FCC's data on VHF was wrong.
But it was appealing to station's bean counters as a cheaper solution, after all the
FCC and NAB were saying it worked.
There was no practical data to prove the paper calculations wrong, as no one had built a station. As a matter of fact the standards had to written before the stations could even apply. The standards were appealing to bean counters. The trap was set.
So in a TV station normally an engineers word is gold, if they have enough gold to implement it. I know at least one station where the engineer warned them but they didn't listen. After all the
FCC said it would work.
Some stations did listen to their engineers but they were the exceptions. WESH in Orlando and a FOX station in the Carolinas whose call I can't remember. Both of them built out 55
KW stations at 500 meters high knowing if they applied first, they would get the allocation.
The
FCC allowed higher power but discoaraged it along with the stations wanting to save money.
Now what is sad. Between 2008 with some stations switching early, some switching early on Feb 17 and others mid April. The data was in. All of them that ran less than about 40
KW were having trouble. If you read the thread I posted that is when the member of AVS saw the writing on the wall. I saw it in other non technical forums where people knew I was into the transition.
So by mid April there was a ton of evidence. Some stations in my area like WTLV and WJXX applied for more power. A lot of stations didn't.
So you see it was a mixed up mess and both the
FCC and station management was to blame.
WUSA CBS, and WJLA ABC in Washington DC are having problems
Linear Mode
