On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:29:48 -0500 Gymdandy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| If the stations are at the same antenna farm it's not an issue otherwise
| it can easily be an issue
|
| check out http://dtvallocations.com
for some maps and you can see in
| several cases like Chicago and Peoria you will see there will be
| problems.
|
| The fcc is assuming a lot for directional antennas. Remember that if a
| station chooses to stay on it's current DTV allocations the FCC gives it
| protections, if a station returns to it's analog or can't stay on its
| DTV allocation cause it's higher than ch 51, that station must accept
| interference.
That seems quite unfair to me. If its digital, or its analog, was above
51,
then that station either has to be on the other (single choice) or opt for
another assignment. One big problem is the FCC handed out transition
channels
above 51. Of course that was done before the decision to reduce the
channel
space. But it certainly seems unfair to the stations that got those
channels.
What should have been done was let those stations have the analog back
under
special cir***stances, like interference protection from stations that are
NOT operating on their transitional or original channel. IMHO, this is a
failure of FCC policy. It remains to be seen if the coverage of WTOV will
actually be as good digitally on channel 9 as it is on either analog on 9
or
digital on 57. If it is NOT as good on 9 digitally as it was on 57, then
I
will be complaining to Congress that the FCC failed and needs to take
action
to correct it. Again, it remains to be seen.
But my challege is the belief that this 2.6% interference would affect
those
outside of the market for either WWCP or WTOV, and that waivers for such
interference cases should be normally granted. Presumably WTOV would not
worry about the interference to their signal for receivers near WWCP two
market areas over, since they proposed the technical changes. But what of
WWCP? The FCC didn't mention that WWCP protested the change, but rather,
that the Longley-Rice model indicated 2.6% interference. IMHO, that
should
not be the exclusive model; consideration should also be made about
markets.
While I _personally_ have an interest in TVDX, the model the FCC should be
dealing with is making sure people can receive their in-market stations as
well as their near-market stations when such are needed to complete
network
coverage (for example the Wheeling-Steubenville market has no ABC or CW
station on the air, so we have to get them from Pittsburgh).
I'll also try to receive WWCP when it comes on channel 8. If I cannot,
then
I will complain to the FCC that they are trying to protect that which
cannot
be worthwhile to protect, and challenge their use of the singular model.
FYI,
I have a better-than-average shot at getting WWCP for this distance, since
I'm on the hillside that faces towards WWCP (and away from WTOV). I would
not expect to get a station so far away. OTOH, a test done near here in
St. Clairsville, OH, brought in 3 stations from Cleveland (and only two
from
Pittsburgh ... go figure).
Or, maybe WTOV can come up with a different antenna pattern and
re-propose.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating
from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more
readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet.
|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at
ipal.net) |
|
