First Again WRAL Launches ATSC 3.0 Service

osu1991

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Sep 4, 2004
10,192
2,598
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/95854/first-again-wral-launches-atsc-30-service

Today at noon, the Capitol Broadcasting-owned NBC affiliate in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., began transmission of a next-gen ATSC 3.0 signal on ch. 39 under an experimental license from the FCC.

WRAL launched 3.0 with a simulcast of its noon news in 1080p and a 22-minute documentary, Take Me Out to the Bulls Game, in 4K/UHD with high dynamic range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KE4EST
I don't believe they are first this time. I think Sinclair ran tests before.
 
I don't believe they are first this time. I think Sinclair ran tests before.
They are experimentally broadcasting on channel 43 out of Baltimore/DC. They ran some tests in Cleveland too.

Sinclair was also responsible for the demo signal on channel 45 during NAB.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/resources/0006/coming-soon-atsc-30/278850

All of this is testing stuff though so there's still an opportunity to be the first station to commercially broadcast (versus experimentally).
 
With all this atsc mess arent some station's sharing the same transmitter. This would be a good start having WRAL and its sister station Fox WRAZ. Cant a 1080, 720, and 2 480s be on same transmitter.
NBC/Fox/MeTV/H&I
 
With all this atsc mess arent some station's sharing the same transmitter. This would be a good start having WRAL and its sister station Fox WRAZ. Cant a 1080, 720, and 2 480s be on same transmitter.
Perhaps, but not until ATSC 3.0 is up and running and consumers have the ability to tune it. As Scott pointed out, the proponents prefer not to visit the fact that there aren't any consumer ATSC 3.0 tuners available.

Between now and the threshold of enabled viewers is met (it was 85% for the DTV transition), there will have to be both DTV and ATSC 3.0 versions of each channel that plans to continue broadcasting.
 
Between now and the threshold of enabled viewers is met (it was 85% for the DTV transition), there will have to be both DTV and ATSC 3.0 versions of each channel that plans to continue broadcasting.
And how will that be accomplished with the proposed "channel repack"? There will not be enough space (bandwidth) to transmit both signals. VHF-Low is NOT the answer.
 
And how will that be accomplished with the proposed "channel repack"? There will not be enough space (bandwidth) to transmit both signals. VHF-Low is NOT the answer.
Proponents propose that the transition will be done during the repack and it WILL involve VHF-low. Those with their nifty multi-bay antennas are going to have to swallow their pride (or admit that they were hoodwinked) because a substantial number of the stations are going to be moving down in the spectrum; perhaps up to 18% of them into VHF-low.
 
Proponents propose that the transition will be done during the repack and it WILL involve VHF-low. Those with their nifty multi-bay antennas are going to have to swallow their pride (or admit that they were hoodwinked) because a substantial number of the stations are going to be moving down in the spectrum; perhaps up to 18% of them into VHF-low.
VHF-Low will really suck. In Philly, you cannot pick up Channel 6 if you are 20 miles from the tower. Sometimes, you can't pick it up in the center of the city. I'm about 45 miles away and cannot pick it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPVI-TV#Reception_issues
Reception issues[edit]
In an analog world, operations on VHF channels (those between 2 and 13) could operate at power levels significantly lower than UHF stations (saving electricity costs), and still cover greater areas. The All-Channel Receiver Act of 1961 guaranteed that all new TV's must be designed to receive UHF channels, but the major networks were already well established. For digital transmissions VHF channels are very noisy in particular Low-VHF (channels 2-6). It is difficult to receive the signals without the standardized 30' outdoor antenna. Fewer than 40 full power stations in the USA are using Low-VHF channels since the mandatory digital conversion in 2009, and major network affiliates are mostly in large sparsely populated direct marketing areas where outdoor antennas are common. In contrast to the USA, the United Kingdom completely abandoned VHF channels for television when they went all digital.

WPVI-TV had been broadcasting digital signals on channel UHF 64 from 1997-2009, but that channel was recovered by the FCC for resale in March 2008. WPVI-TV was by far the largest urban station to broadcast in the Low-VHF band after the mandatory digital transition in 2009. Next to Philadelphia, the next largest market areas served by a major network affiliate with a Low-VHF channel is Las Vegas, NV served by NBC affiliate KSNV-DT. WPVI-DT went back to channel 6, where they had been broadcasting analog signals since 1948. The WPVI-TV signal was difficult to receive with an indoor antenna, even within Philadelphia proper.

The FCC granted the station a temporary power increase to 30 kilowatts, following consent given from WEDY in New Haven, Connecticut and WRGB in Schenectady, New York. Because of potential interference with other stations and with FM radio, there was doubt as to whether this increase could be granted.[12] Some viewers did notice an improvement in their signal;[13] however, WPVI continued to receive complaints regarding the viewability of its digital signal.[14] The problems have continued to this day.[15][16] WPVI, along with Wilmington, Delaware-licensed stations PBS member station WHYY-TV (channel 12) and KJWP (channel 2, a 2013 move-in from Jackson, Wyoming) are the only Philadelphia area stations whose digital signals operate on the VHF band, as all others physically broadcast on UHF. The FCC advises that a single antenna position will likely not pull both low- and high-band VHF signals (unlike the analog era).
 
The Wiki article speaks to the idea that some of the problems come from co-channel issues with stations in New Haven and Schenectady. That problem may be resolved by shifting everyone around (or it might not).

I see where there are stations that are seven miles from a random location in Philadelphia that tvfool assigned to the city (Google Maps seems to center on the Ardmore area) that show one or more edges. It sounds like they're going to need to relocate some of the broadcast towers to deal with the edge issue.
 
Ya, that's Roxborough. Almost all the towers are there. They aren't moving I'm pretty sure.
 
The Wiki article speaks to the idea that some of the problems come from co-channel issues with stations in New Haven and Schenectady. That problem may be resolved by shifting everyone around (or it might not).

I see where there are stations that are seven miles from a random location in Philadelphia that tvfool assigned to the city (Google Maps seems to center on the Ardmore area) that show one or more edges. It sounds like they're going to need to relocate some of the broadcast towers to deal with the edge issue.
The FCC admits in the Wiki that VHF-Low is a problem and yet wants to pack more channels in the VHF-Low band.
The FCC advises that a single antenna position will likely not pull both low- and high-band VHF signals (unlike the analog era).
 
Proponents propose that the transition will be done during the repack and it WILL involve VHF-low. Those with their nifty multi-bay antennas are going to have to swallow their pride (or admit that they were hoodwinked) because a substantial number of the stations are going to be moving down in the spectrum; perhaps up to 18% of them into VHF-low.
So if WVLA drops from 33 to some vhf low I should receive the same good signal because with or without the multibay I was catching it remarkably. I'm sure not all the uhf gonna drop to the vhf. I can get the majority of the vhf ones on the multibay. The proponents must be politicians

Anyway appreciation you expertise
 
So if WVLA drops from 33 to some vhf low I should receive the same good signal ...
No, unfortunately if WVLA33 (RF34) moves to low-VHF, that constitutes a large frequency shift and there really isn't a way for you to tell right now. You could maybe guess, based on how well you recv WAFB... but it's still really just a guess.
 
No, unfortunately if WVLA33 (RF34) moves to low-VHF, that constitutes a large frequency shift and there really isn't a way for you to tell right now. You could maybe guess, based on how well you recv WAFB... but it's still really just a guess.
Hopefully i can still get it, both WAFB and WBRZ are vhf hi.. I can get WVLA because their transmitter is about 55 miles from my antenna. I get WBRZ 2 rf13 great majority of the time. Worst case if your on point, and it goes from uhf to the worst case scenario I'd lose the Laff Network that will launch on WVLA soon. Oof..
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts