Incentive Auction Discussion

[larrykenney]

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area there is a station on every channel from 38 to 51 within 65 miles of my home in San Francisco. I don't see where they're all going to move to. That's 14 stations and there are only 6 empty channels in the area: 5, 6, 11, 22, 24 and 31. Looks like there will be some channel sharing or the low power stations on channels 2, 3 and 4 will be gone.

 

[Trip]

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area there is a station on every channel from 38 to 51 within 65 miles of my home in San Francisco. I don't see where they're all going to move to. That's 14 stations and there are only 6 empty channels in the area: 5, 6, 11, 22, 24 and 31. Looks like there will be some channel sharing or the low power stations on channels 2, 3 and 4 will be gone.

Don't forget that stations have the option of being paid to go off the air.

- Trip

 

[HoTat2]

It is probably bad form to declare some channels subordinate as they all come through as one stream even though there could be a 47.1 and a 26.1 on the same frequency. The parent and child thing isn't really valid if there are multiple flagship channels; this situation already exists in markets where the two 720p "Big Four" feeds share a frequency.

It's true. Even in some major markets, such as Boston.

Well, I never said the terminology of referring to all above the .1 channel as the actual "subchannels" was a good practice. But that's the official use of terminology someone corrected me on when I use to regularly call all of them "sub-channels."

But I'll happily switch back to the former terminology...

I also have long had a problem with the expression "physical channel" as opposed to the "virtual channel" since the actual physical channel as posted on Rabbit Ears also contains a logical part making that part really "virtual" as well.

For instance, let's say a DTV subchannel has a physical sub. of 13.3 That means RF channel 13, progam number 3 where the program number is logical and refers to a specific sub-stream within the TS multiplex from the station.

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[harshness]

I also have long had a problem with the expression "physical channel" as opposed to the "virtual channel" since the actual physical channel as posted on Rabbit Ears also contains a logical part making that part really "virtual" as well.

Subchannels are all on the same "physical channel" so that doesn't really advance our understanding in any context. I have a similar problem with the term "real channel" as a complement to "virtual channel". This the motivation for my campaign to use the term "RF" that pretty much defies misinterpretation.

For instance, let's say a DTV subchannel has a physical sub. of 13.3 That means RF channel 13, progam number 3 where the program number is logical and refers to a specific sub-stream within the TS multiplex from the station.

13.3 doesn't necessarily mean RF 13. It is perhaps more likely that the RF channel isn't 13 but some higher frequency. Of course my nearest channel 13 (KVAL) is indeed on RF 13 but I suspect many of them aren't. Such is the magic of PSIP.

 

[harshness]

Don't forget that stations have the option of being paid to go off the air.

Do these "haven't decided yet" players call into question what's going to be left over from the forward auction proceeds or will that be offset by the dollars not paid to move them to another frequency?

 

[harshness]

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area there is a station on every channel from 38 to 51 within 65 miles of my home in San Francisco. I don't see where they're all going to move to. That's 14 stations and there are only 6 empty channels in the area: 5, 6, 11, 22, 24 and 31. Looks like there will be some channel sharing or the low power stations on channels 2, 3 and 4 will be gone.

Your situation seems pretty dire, but I doubt it is all that unique. Even more dire is how they might handle a simulcast transition to ATSC 3.0 after the repack. Physics will bitch-slap those who aren't seeing the big picture.

 

[HoTat2]

Subchannels are all on the same "physical channel" so that doesn't really advance our understanding in any context. I have a similar problem with the term "real channel" as a complement to "virtual channel". This the motivation for my campaign to use the term "RF" that pretty much defies misinterpretation.13.3 doesn't necessarily mean RF 13. It is perhaps more likely that the RF channel isn't 13 but some higher frequency. Of course my nearest channel 13 (KVAL) is indeed on RF 13 but I suspect many of them aren't. Such is the magic of PSIP.

No, I mean that is the way the physical channel is listed such as on Rabbit Ears. With an actual physical part and a logical one which makes the expression "physical channel" not entirely accurate.

For example virtual 11-2 here in the LA market, which is presently KTTV Fox's SD version of their 11-1 HD one, has a physical channel of 13.7 Which means it's coming from RF channel 13 (KCOP-TV), program stream (or transport sub-stream) number 7.

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[Nascarken 91xg]

Yes like Boston N,J new York, ct state NBC Fox's are all UHF hi but in Boston is all so Hi vhf wcvb,5.1 .wtnh channel 8 .in Ct,state, wwlp,22,out chiopee ma tower is in Agawam ma, hi vhf like 6month a go added ion,lon,life Qvc,!and wwlp had thier channel list for a long time now in Boston back in October of 2016,lost channel 7,do to selling out to a cable company, so stash ion's like 7,are the one's being sold and going off the aire 26.1 out of new London ct UHF

 

[Trip]

Do these "haven't decided yet" players call into question what's going to be left over from the forward auction proceeds or will that be offset by the dollars not paid to move them to another frequency?

They're already decided. The reverse auction determined who is going off, who is moving to VHF, and who is repacked. The final channel assignments were finished yesterday. The law authorizing the auction required confidentiality of that information until the auction is over, which it is not, so that information has not yet been released.

Your situation seems pretty dire, but I doubt it is all that unique. Even more dire is how they might handle a simulcast transition to ATSC 3.0 after the repack. Physics will bitch-slap those who aren't seeing the big picture.

This isn't the ATSC 3.0 thread, but I seriously think you do not understand what has been proposed for the ATSC 3.0 transition. Stations would convert to ATSC 3.0 and continue to provide their programming as subchannels on remaining ATSC 1.0 signals. So for example, in Portland, KPDX might convert to ATSC 3.0 and provide the programming of both KPTV and KPDX in that format. Simultaneously, KPTV would add KPDX's programming as additional subchannels. The NAB specifically requested not to provide additional channel assignments for ATSC 3.0.

Of course, all of this is academic at present, as the FCC has yet to either issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or an Order adopting it.

No, I mean that is the way the physical channel is listed such as on Rabbit Ears. With an actual physical part and a logical one which makes the expression "physical channel" not entirely accurate.

For example virtual 11-2 here in the LA market, which is presently KTTV Fox's SD version of their 11-1 HD one, has a physical channel of 13.7 Which means it's coming from RF channel 13 (KCOP-TV), program stream (or transport sub-stream) number 7.

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

If you have an alternate term of similar or shorter length that you think would be better, I'm all ears. I chose "physical" because even the "logical" part of it is backed up in something found in the stream and is not simply a text string describing the program, like the virtual channel is. Any longer or more specific term would make the header too wide, and I already don't like how wide it is.

- Trip

 

[HoTat2]

... If you have an alternate term of similar or shorter length that you think would be better, I'm all ears. I chose "physical" because even the "logical" part of it is backed up in something found in the stream and is not simply a text string describing the program, like the virtual channel is. Any longer or more specific term would make the header too wide, and I already don't like how wide it is.

- Trip

Oh, no criticism is intended ...

I don't see a better expression for it either ...

My point was that unfortunately descriptive terminology doesn't aways fit a process like a glove. Especially when concision is needed for brevity sake.



Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[comfortably_numb]

They're already decided. The reverse auction determined who is going off, who is moving to VHF, and who is repacked. The final channel assignments were finished yesterday.

- Trip

Very good to know. So at this point, no other channels would be "forced off" the air who haven't already agreed to be compensated to go off-air? In other words, when the music stops, everybody else still has a seat?

 

[Peter Parker]

Remember too that even if a station will lose a slot it may have alternatives. It has been reported that one of the PBS channels in the DC area volunteered but will live on either by sharing a frequency or as a regional cable channel. There may be other stations investigating similar ways to live on.

 

[Trip]

Very good to know. So at this point, no other channels would be "forced off" the air who haven't already agreed to be compensated to go off-air? In other words, when the music stops, everybody else still has a seat?

Only full-power and Class A stations were protected, so LPTV stations could still be forced to go off the air if no channels are available. But yes, any full-power or Class A station that does not have a channel has agreed to be compensated via the auction process either to go off the air entirely or channel share with a broadcaster that is not going off the air.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

This isn't the ATSC 3.0 thread, but I seriously think you do not understand what has been proposed for the ATSC 3.0 transition. Stations would convert to ATSC 3.0 and continue to provide their programming as subchannels on remaining ATSC 1.0 signals.

I acknowledge that this isn't the ATSC 3.0 thread, but declaring one or more of the other coincidental mandates as an unrelated issue is dangerous.

Assuming that you can conveniently combine multiple station properties with their attendant HD and SD properties into a single DTV channel doesn't seem reasonable. Where I work, we call this the "Infinite Capacity Model" where the real limitations are summarily dismissed as buzz-kill. Mandating is considerably easier than making it happen; especially if you don't have to contemplate that your mandates may be mutually exclusive.

 

[Justin Hill]

In Green Bay, there are only two stations assigned frequencies above 36:
WPNE-TV (PBS) 38
WGBD-LD (Daystar) 49

 

[Trip]

I acknowledge that this isn't the ATSC 3.0 thread, but declaring one or more of the other coincidental mandates as an unrelated issue is dangerous.

Assuming that you can conveniently combine multiple station properties with their attendant HD and SD properties into a single DTV channel doesn't seem reasonable. Where I work, we call this the "Infinite Capacity Model" where the real limitations are summarily dismissed as buzz-kill. Mandating is considerably easier than making it happen; especially if you don't have to contemplate that your mandates may be mutually exclusive.

There is no mandate for ATSC 3.0 and one isn't proposed by NAB. Whatever you choose to believe, ATSC 3.0 and the Incentive Auction are unrelated items. The FCC has not issued an NPRM nor an Order for ATSC 3.0, so as of right now, stations are not allowed to use ATSC 3.0 outside of experimental authorizations in any case.

As far as feasibility, it's what the broadcasters are proposing, and I can't imagine they would propose something they didn't believe they could pull off. Plenty of stations are running 2xHD plus SDs at this point, including your local PBS as of Monday 1/23. Beyond that, I don't know what to tell you.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

There is no mandate for ATSC 3.0 and one isn't proposed by NAB.

My understanding is that the FCC has been tasked with fostering a more bandwidth-efficient alternative to DTV. I didn't say that it had to be ATSC 3.0 but it puts a face on what could be done at this point. It seems inevitable that they're going to have to do something going forward.

 

[Nascarken 91xg]

OK rabbit ER's class A full power broadcasting TV station's out west is where u will see a lot of that happen I think ct,state N,j mass and yes off the air they go like channel 7 out of Boston did but a cable company bot it and off the air they went

 

[harshness]

out west is where u will see a lot of that happen

What is this magical "out west" that you refer to? For those in New England, Chicago falls under the category of "out west".

I live about 50 miles from the Pacific Ocean and I don't anticipate things being particularly exciting as a result of the repack as we've got around 25 frequencies give or take. San Fran seems likely to be the Wild West though. The situation in small clusters of the markets could be even more exciting where the topography isn't there to mechanically shorten the transmission distances. localclassictvfan's greater New Orleans area perhaps bears watching if you're looking for excitement with their mean elevation of 100 feet (the same as Florida).

 

[navychop]

I believe that ATSC allows for PSIP games such as 13.1 being on rf 30 and 13.2 being on rf 26.

I never saw a believable business case for this. Until now. Maybe when space gets tight, a richer station may pay another station to carry a sub channel. Then the games begin about bit starving.