FCC Says 1 in 5 TV stations won't reach current viewers

AndyTiedye

DTVUSA Member
#2
It is certainly possible that 2% of the population live in forested or hilly terrain.
The figure is probably higher than that.

The big problem here isn't digital itself, it is the loss of channels 2-6 and the relocation of most stations to UHF.

2-6 were the frequencies that got through trees and over hills much better than UHF or even high VHF.

Most stations are relocated to fairly high UHF frequencies which we are NOT able to receive.
Only a couple of local stations will remain on VHF after the changeover, and even those
may be impossible to receive.

The loss of KQED on channel 9 is particularly galling, as they should have been able
to keep their frequency and move their digital to it when the changeover happens,
but for some reason it was reassigned to KVIE in Sacramento which is losing its
assignment on channel 6. KQED is one of the flagship stations of PBS, but will lose
many of its viewers on being forced to move to channel 30. (KQED is not available
on the local cable system, either, even though we are only 25 miles from San Francisco).
 
Last edited:

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#3
It is certainly possible that 2% of the population live in forested or hilly terrain.
The figure is probably higher than that.

The big problem here isn't digital itself, it is the loss of channels 2-6 and the relocation of most stations to UHF.

2-6 were the frequencies that got through trees and over hills much better than UHF or even high VHF.

Most stations are relocated to fairly high UHF frequencies which we are able to receive.
Only a couple of local stations will remain on VHF after the changeover, and even those
may be impossible to receive.

The loss of KQED on channel 9 is particularly galling, as they should have been able
to keep their frequency and move their digital to it when the changeover happens,
but for some reason it was reassigned to KVIE in Sacramento which is losing its
assignment on channel 6. KQED is one of the flagship stations of PBS, but will lose
many of its viewers on being forced to move to channel 30. (KQED is not available
on the local cable system, either, even though we are only 25 miles from San Francisco).
Andy, have you tried contacting KQED to ask them how they plan on boosting signals for viewers such as yourself? I've seen a few instances where station engineers in L.A. have actually driven to someone's house to help troubleshoot antenna and dtv reception issues.
 

Jason Fritz

Administrator
Staff member
#4
It is certainly possible that 2% of the population live in forested or hilly terrain.
The figure is probably higher than that.

The big problem here isn't digital itself, it is the loss of channels 2-6 and the relocation of most stations to UHF.

2-6 were the frequencies that got through trees and over hills much better than UHF or even high VHF.

Most stations are relocated to fairly high UHF frequencies which we are able to receive.
Only a couple of local stations will remain on VHF after the changeover, and even those
may be impossible to receive.

The loss of KQED on channel 9 is particularly galling, as they should have been able
to keep their frequency and move their digital to it when the changeover happens,
but for some reason it was reassigned to KVIE in Sacramento which is losing its
assignment on channel 6. KQED is one of the flagship stations of PBS, but will lose
many of its viewers on being forced to move to channel 30. (KQED is not available
on the local cable system, either, even though we are only 25 miles from San Francisco).
Andy, have you seen this yet: http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_report1/San_Francisco-Oakland-San_Jose_CA.pdf

It's the FCC's report on DTV coverage for San Fransisco, CA and Santa Cruz Mountain area. According to the report, it looks like KQED is actually gaining a few spots in the SC Mountains with DTV over analog signals. I wonder how accurate these reports actually are...
 
Top