8/5/2010 3:05am - Uplink Activity Report - 49 changes

[drdroo]

Yeah, I know. I have patience, I just don't always use it.

At least the 18th isn't bad. I was expecting with all of these satellite moves, upgrades, etc. that we were going to be jammed up for another year.

Ever since NBC moved from UHF to VHF here, the quality of the signal has been garbage here in the city. I'm sure it's better further out of the city, but it WAS great here on UHF and now many people in the city can't even get it.

 

[sundude90]

At least the 18th isn't bad. I was expecting with all of these satellite moves, upgrades, etc. that we were going to be jammed up for another year.

Ever since NBC moved from UHF to VHF here, the quality of the signal has been garbage here in the city. I'm sure it's better further out of the city, but it WAS great here on UHF and now many people in the city can't even get it.

Your right, the 18th is not bad at all.

I am surprised about the problems with NBC. NBC comes in good in Bar Harbor, but CBS doesn't come in hardly at all unfortunately. I wish that CBS would come in better.

 

[drdroo]

Your right, the 18th is not bad at all.

I am surprised about the problems with NBC. NBC comes in good in Bar Harbor, but CBS doesn't come in hardly at all unfortunately. I wish that CBS would come in better.

I'm pretty sure the NBC affiliate has a repeater down near you, perhaps on Blue Hill (I know WLBZ has a tower cam there at the very least). The problem with VHF here has to do with their setup in Holden I suspect.

There's been plenty of people that gripe about this online. I'm penalized for living in the city. I get a signal of about 60, which comes and goes, pixellates, etc. My brother lives closer and he can't get a thing. I can't get a thing in some rooms.

WABI's site is in Dixmont. I don't know if they have any other structures or repeaters. I get CBS fine, but CBS doesn't have any programming I give a crap about unless it's football season.

 

[Mr Tony]

Ever since NBC moved from UHF to VHF here, the quality of the signal has been garbage here in the city. I'm sure it's better further out of the city, but it WAS great here on UHF and now many people in the city can't even get it.

looking at the info for that station for the digital station they're back at their analog channel number which is 2. Very few stations put their digital station on VHF Low.....and at a whopping 3000 watts dont help either

 

[drdroo]

looking at the info for that station for the digital station they're back at their analog channel number which is 2. Very few stations put their digital station on VHF Low.....and at a whopping 3000 watts dont help either

Right. I don't know how much power they were using when they were on (I think it was Digital 25). However, they decided to switch a few months after the 'conversion' back to their Channel 2 location on VHF to try to 'cover more area'.

The CBS station is owned by the Hildreth family if memory serves. The NBC affiliate is owned by Gannett. For some reason the 'littler guy' seems to be better able to get things done.

 

[Mr Tony]

from the FCC info

digital 25...575Kw 199m
analog 2...51Kw same height...so about 1/2 the power of a "normal" full powered station (analog 2-6 was 100kw max)
digital 2....3000 watts at 192m

They should have stayed on UHF...the power they put out would travel farther than the VHF would. I'm shocked they went back to digital 2 as VHF low is BAD for digital....very few stations did it.
Reason is low-band VHF signals are more prone to interference from atmospheric conditions than higher channel numbers

 

[drdroo]

I've no idea why they did it, but the numbers definitely explain why the experience is garbage.

MPBN (WMEB) is on VHF 9 @ 15kW and that's a hard one for me to get too. UHF definitely favored me.

I'm using a Terk TV50 which is VHF/UHF, so I doubt that's it.

 

[Mr Tony]

Here in Minneapolis Fox & NBC went to their VHF signals at the conversion (9 & 11) while the other 9 stations stayed UHF and both 9 & 11 have had issues since then...they've done changes galore and recently both bumped up power to 40Kwatts

(by the way KARE11 is owned by Gannett too)

 

[drdroo]

Seems stupid to me.

Our FOX station received Digital Flash Cut permission in Sept of last year (They applied in April 2008 I believe) and still seems to have no public plan to move to UHF 22.

I'm really curious what the standard for this thing is with other stations (they were low power analog and weren't forced to go digital). Their construction permit ends next year though.

 

[digiblur]

Have you tried a different antenna? I heard them referred to as Terd instead of Terk many times...quickly figured out when I helped 2 people that had them. They ended up in the garbage after I was done with the jobs.

 

[drdroo]

My TV55 has been the only thing that can actually pick these stations up at all. Every other brand and type I've used (short of something that mounts on my roof) has yielded less, not more.

Once Dish adds my locals in HD, the antenna is going into storage.

 

[sundude90]

Seems stupid to me.

Our FOX station received Digital Flash Cut permission in Sept of last year (They applied in April 2008 I believe) and still seems to have no public plan to move to UHF 22.

I'm really curious what the standard for this thing is with other stations (they were low power analog and weren't forced to go digital). Their construction permit ends next year though.

I was told that they don't have the money to put up FOX in HD on OTA.

 

[mike123abc]

from the FCC info

digital 25...575Kw 199m
analog 2...51Kw same height...so about 1/2 the power of a "normal" full powered station (analog 2-6 was 100kw max)
digital 2....3000 watts at 192m

They should have stayed on UHF...the power they put out would travel farther than the VHF would. I'm shocked they went back to digital 2 as VHF low is BAD for digital....very few stations did it.
Reason is low-band VHF signals are more prone to interference from atmospheric conditions than higher channel numbers

That is really surprising. Why would they give up a 575kw UHF transmitter for a 3kw VHF one? I wonder if they are doing it just to hold the spectrum and rely on cable/satellite instead of paying a high electric bill. It probably saves them $30k/month in electricity. VHF-Lo also has bad multipathing issues too, very poor choice.

 

[Mr Tony]

Seems stupid to me.

Our FOX station received Digital Flash Cut permission in Sept of last year (They applied in April 2008 I believe) and still seems to have no public plan to move to UHF 22.

I'm really curious what the standard for this thing is with other stations (they were low power analog and weren't forced to go digital). Their construction permit ends next year though.

They are a subchannel on ABC from what I see. Seems like thats what stations are doing when they own more than one station and one is on analog. They just keep it analog and piggyback it as a subchannel on the "main" network

 

[Mr Tony]

VHF-Lo also has bad multipathing issues too, very poor choice.

I agree...at least if they wanted to stay VHF use a VHF Hi station for digital.

Its probably a market that relies mainly on cable & satellite. Looking at the market there are a couple "thundersticks" power wise
This one we've talked about
PBS goes from 316Kw to 15Kw (they stayed on VHF Hi)
ABC goes from 316Kw to 14Kw

Thats just crazy

 

[Bobby]

VHF travels much further on much less wattage then UHF. KGO, San Francisco operates on channel 7 and transmits at 23.8kw. I get it very strongly, as well as any of the UHF stations, 50 miles away. It's not crazy at all, it's transmission theory, and of course, economics. VHF is much cheaper to transmit than UHF.

 

[tjwgrr]

[5254(27) - WCMV [MPEG4 HD] added to EchoStar3 61.5W TP 18 ConUS beam (Mkt:Traverse City, MI-Cadillac, MI-PBS) (NA)

I see TC got PBS HD. Why can't the larger markets get it?????