Incentive Auction Discussion

[HoTat2]

So basically if your RF Station number is 29 to 51 then they got to go to 28 or lower.....right

I'm sure not every channel in the market is going to go to vhf low when you have from 7-28, which give you a little chance depending on how many channels are in your market.

No, if a station choses to remain on the air after the reverse auction and it's current RF channel number is anywhere in the range of 30 to 36 or 38 to 51. It will have to eventually move to somewhere in the range of chs. 2 to 29 in all markets.

Needless to say, this transition will take years to fully complete.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk

 

[harshness]

So basically if your RF Station number is 29 to 51 then they got to go to 28 or lower.....right

30-51 are going away. Remember the count starts at 2.

I'm sure not every channel in the market is going to go to vhf low when you have from 7-28, which give you a little chance depending on how many channels are in your market.

Nobody said every channel is going to have to move to VHF-low. The issue is that up to 18% may be forced to depending on how many stations are stuffed in an area. Quite a few markets already have more than 23 channels in use while others that are in close proximity to other markets have to swim in the same remaining puddle of channels. Your's appears to be such an situation with three somewhat close markets (Lafayette, Alexandria and Baton Rouge) dividing your available frequencies.

 

[localclassictvfan]

30-51 are going away. Remember the count starts at 2.Nobody said every channel is going to have to move to VHF-low. The issue is that up to 18% may be forced to depending on how many stations are stuffed in an area. Quite a few markets already have more than 23 channels in use while others that are in close proximity to other markets have to swim in the same remaining puddle of channels. Your's appears to be such an situation with three somewhat close markets (Lafayette, Alexandria and Baton Rouge) dividing your available frequencies.

I never said that anyone said every channel will move to VHF-LOW, I said I'M SURE NOT EVERY. OH and no biggie Lake Charles has 4 stations and 3 are considered the Lafayette Market, the other in Beaumont, Alexandria has maybe 5 so we'll have some room....

 

[harshness]

OH and no biggie Lake Charles has 4 stations and 3 are considered the Lafayette Market, the other in Beaumont, Alexandria has maybe 5 so we'll have some room....

Regardless of where they're designated, all of the channels in your area will have to share frequencies from the shallow pool. With 28 available frequencies, it is going to be tight where there are many channels within 100 miles or so. At a test location in your area, I show 20 frequencies being pretty well occupied. How that meshes with surrounding areas isn't entirely clear.

Your station table shows a lot of co-channel warnings now and it is going to get a lot more crazy. Most are outside of the receivable range, but that doesn't mean that they won't cause interference with those that are in range.

 

[localclassictvfan]

2 of Alexandria's towers are south of town making it quite easy for the Lake Charles and Lafayette areas to get access too. So excluding BR, thats 15 channels not including the out of range Alex Stations. So thats half the space there. No one wants the vhf low. For example a majority of Baton Rouge can get 50 from Lafayette which has H&I on its DT2 and KLFY/KATC also. Crazy, Crazy, Crazy

 

[localclassictvfan]

I did a tv fool based off a Lafayette addresd and kalb, kbca, and several Baton rouge have the adjacent and co-channel warnings. Since were discussing this what does adjacent and cochannel warnings stand for

 

[harshness]

No one wants the vhf low.

The goal of the FCC is to raise money, not satisfy the TV broadcasters or hardcore bay antenna fans. To that end, they're going to try to sell all of the best frequencies from the TV band and leave TV with the wretched refuse.

With the changes in frequency, changes in antenna location and configuration are pretty likely. What works for 650MHz (channel 44) doesn't work for 192Mhz (channel 10) or 54Mhz (channel 2). Assuming things will remain as they are through the repack and introduction of ATSC 3.0 is foolishness.

 

[harshness]

Since were discussing this what does adjacent and cochannel warnings stand for

I think someone explained this earlier but it bears repeating:

adjacent channel: channels that are one frequency step away and may "bleed over" (presumably not so much a problem with modern tuners and modulation schemes).
cochannel: Channels on the same frequency that may bombard the tuner with an entirely different (albeit weaker) signal.

Going forward, most channels will be adjacent and it is up to the FCC to make sure that the impacts of cochannels are minimized.

 

[localclassictvfan]

I think someone explained this earlier but it bears repeating:

adjacent channel: channels that are one frequency step away and may "bleed over" (presumably not so much a problem with modern tuners and modulation schemes).
cochannel: Channels on the same frequency that may bombard the tuner with an entirely different (albeit weaker) signal.

Going forward, most channels will be adjacent and it is up to the FCC to make sure that the impacts of cochannels are minimized.

Thank You

 

[reddice]

What's next for the cell companies. FM 88-108 frequency next. I think the cell companies got plenty of frequency already. They don't need to hijack more TV spectrum.

 

[harshness]

FM 88-108 frequency next.

FM (and VHF) doesn't lend itself to the kind of antenna that you can build into a phone or tablet. That's why I think mobile (my assumption is phone and tablet as opposed to automotive) TV may be a lie. The other side of the coin is that FM is only 20MHz -- hardly worth fighting over for a service as voracious as wireless.

I'm inclined to think that they'll continue to chip away at UHF or try to force some other service down so they can have higher frequencies that penetrate better and don't travel particularly far.

 

[danristheman]

Or get rid of their competition dish network buys it up the frequency works with at&t and verizon to take it over so people have to pay for their local channels.

 

[reddice]

FM (and VHF) could it be used for the "internet of things" devices like stoves, alarms etc? They don't require much bandwidth.

Also saying since you can now stream FM stations online on your smart phone and the fact that OTA is going away for streaming, cable, satellite services.

 

[harshness]

FM (and VHF) could it be used for the "internet of things" devices like stoves, alarms etc? They don't require much bandwidth

But they do require a radio and the associated antenna.

I argue that FM travels too far to be practical for use at that level. A small amount of broadcast power can travel quite a distance under ideal conditions while not reaching far enough under tough conditions. Powerline makes more sense for IoT with maybe some much higher frequency Wi-fi or Zigbee to lace it together.

 

[wildbill47]

Think we are being nuked with all that rf. Our utility meters even have a transmitter. Our present TV OTA is bastard MPEG2 and should have been MPEG4 but that is history. I think the FCC has there head up their A*S.
I agree the the FCC has become a money collection agency like the IRS.

 

[harshness]

Our present TV OTA is bastard MPEG2 and should have been MPEG4 but that is history.

MPEG4 wasn't really a thing back when the DTV standard was being established. It is easy to look at it 15 years later and say it wasn't the best available but in reality, MPEG2 was pretty much it.

 

[Trip]

Think we are being nuked with all that rf. Our utility meters even have a transmitter. Our present TV OTA is bastard MPEG2 and should have been MPEG4 but that is history. I think the FCC has there head up their A*S.

Nuked? The FCC has strict RF safety standards.

MPEG-4 didn't exist when the ATSC standard was adopted. ATSC was adopted by the FCC in 1996, having been standardized in 1995, while MPEG-4 wasn't released until late 1998.

- Trip

 

[wildbill47]

I have noticed that our OTA here Sacramento ca have added more channels to max out their 6 mhz.
reading the posts do not understand the reuse of low tv band. KVIE asked the FCC to continue using ch6 and they were moved to ch 9. This caused financial problems for them being PBS and on donations. The FCC said that a digital tv transmitter at 88mhz would cause interference to FM broadcast band.

 

[Trip]

KVIE requested channel 9, was denied, was granted channel 6 instead, then later requested channel 9 again, which was granted. The FCC did not move them there involuntarily.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

The FCC said that a digital tv transmitter at 88mhz would cause interference to FM broadcast band.

Back in the day, channel 6 TV audio could be tuned on any FM radio. Now the audio is mixed in with the video and multiplexed in with the other subchannels. I wonder if channel 6 doesn't offer the same bandwidth that other channels do in order to guard against interference at the bottom end of the "FM dial". Looking at what the FCC is talking about the separate wireless and TV, they're calling for about 9MHz of gap above channel 30.