Thread: NBC 5 Chicago 5.1 choppy for Bears game

forgot to add other channels in MN on VHF Hi

WDIO Duluth (ABC) 34.6kw
WDSE Duluth (PBS) 17.8kw...they have a construction permit to add a "fill in" translator at 38 (their old DT spot)
KTTC Rochester, MN (NBC) 16kw


but I liked when Mpls was a UHF land for digital. Much easier

Mike Kohl at global-cm.net had a great editorial about this whole "changeover"

We have been attempting to cover the fallout from the June 12th shutoff of full power analog television signals across the United States. It turns out that most of the public WAS ready for the transition, and that television stations were equally ready for that plug to be pulled, forcing everyone into permanent digital mode. But it turns out that flawed engineering data at the FCC has caused a major fiasco with stations that are now using VHF channels 2 to 13 for digital. Most visible examples include channel 13 in Baltimore, which was doing fine with its analog VHF channel, and equally well if not even better with their temporary UHF digital frequency. Once they shut off analog on VHF, turned off the temporary UHF digital signal, and then turned on VHF digital, a nasty surprise was found. As an outsider, all I can see is that highly visible engineering people must have been sleeping through much of their elementary school mathematics classes, and missed the parts on multiplication and division. Let's see if the rest of you can pass this test: If a UHF TV station was allowed to transmit 5 million watts video power in analog, and then given permission to use 1 million watts for digital, that would mean that the digital signal is using 20% of the power of previous analog signal. Suppose that a VHF station on channel 13 was previously transmitting at the maximum 316 Kw allowed for analog (just as UHF channels were allowed 5000 Kw on analog), would it not make a little bit of sense that the digital allotment should be somewhere near 20% of the previous analog power output? That number would be just over 60 Kw in most circumstances. Why were VHF channels given power outputs typically between 10 and 30 Kw? Did nobody realize that you would get extremely reduced coverage at a fraction of the power? And there was no real-world testing situation in many cases to see if digital VHF performance was adequate at proposed power levels?? Somewhere in the explanation should include the word "idiot", in my humble opinion. At least the FCC is now acting at previously unheard of speed to respond to broadcasters that are struggling with the power levels authorized, and giving them permission to crank up the power. It's still sort of an experimental process, with those complaining the loudest getting the attention (and permission) to increase power levels. Let's hope that things work out for the best sooner than later. Next is the plan to allow fill-in translators and other rebroadcasters to go on the air in areas that digital is now not working---after being satisfactory for analog signals for many years. Another debacle that will take a long time to straighten our!