"Bruce Tomlin" wrote in message
...
Here's what the KC MO area looks like:

actual / maximum
4 WDAF FOX - 34 1.1KW / 1000KW
5 KCTV CBS - 24 225KW / 820KW
6 KMOS PBS - 15 322KW
9 KMBC ABC - 7 85KW
19 KCPT PBS - 18 48KW / 55KW
29 KCWE UPN - 31 525KW / 1000KW
41 KSHB NBC - 42 450KW
50 KPXE PAX - 51 1000KW
62 KSMO WB - 47 9KW / 1000KW

I'm sure you'll find a correlation between actual transmitter strength
and reception suckage. It doesn't look too bad, except for WB and FOX.
Note that KMBC shouldn't suck, because VHF digital stations only need
roughtly a tenth the power of UHF stations. 40KW will provide a very
nice signal on channel 13.

That explains why some of the stations aren't being received.
I was receiving WB and then it went away. They must have
been running a test at higher power when I was able to
receive enough signal. WB and FOX are the ones that I can't
receive.

I contacted FOX in Austin not long ago. They said they are aiming to start
broadcasting at a higher power about a year from now.

"Bruce Tomlin" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mark Jones" wrote:

The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and
some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the
edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas
that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal
with an outside antenna.

That would probably have something to do with most stations (everywhere
in the US) not yet broadcasting at full power. Many are apparently
broadcasting on temporary licenses allowing them to operate at 5%-25% of
their maximum licensed power. This is as an exemption to a full power
license that they already have.

The Fox station here in Austin is broadcasting at 800 watts. That's 800
watts as in eight light bulbs, compared to full ATSC UHF transmitter
power of up to one MILLION watts. (Analog NTSC apparently goes to 5
million watts.) I'm less than 15 miles away, and I can barely get the
tiniest blip out of it with an outside antenna aimed in exactly the
right direction.

I don't have any problem with CBS and ABC here broadcasting at 35.4KW
and 62.5KW instead of 1000KW, though the antenna does have to be pointed
in the right direction.

By the end of 2006, this should not be a problem. But that's still over
two years away.


Here's what the KC MO area looks like:

actual / maximum
4 WDAF FOX - 34 1.1KW / 1000KW
5 KCTV CBS - 24 225KW / 820KW
6 KMOS PBS - 15 322KW
9 KMBC ABC - 7 85KW
19 KCPT PBS - 18 48KW / 55KW
29 KCWE UPN - 31 525KW / 1000KW
41 KSHB NBC - 42 450KW
50 KPXE PAX - 51 1000KW
62 KSMO WB - 47 9KW / 1000KW

I'm sure you'll find a correlation between actual transmitter strength
and reception suckage. It doesn't look too bad, except for WB and FOX.
Note that KMBC shouldn't suck, because VHF digital stations only need
roughtly a tenth the power of UHF stations. 40KW will provide a very
nice signal on channel 13.


Here's the URL which brings up the license info. Replace Kxxx with the
station ID.

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=Kxxx

I contacted FOX in Austin not long ago. They said they are aiming to start
broadcasting at a higher power about a year from now.

"Bruce Tomlin" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Mark Jones" wrote:

The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and
some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the
edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas
that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal
with an outside antenna.

That would probably have something to do with most stations (everywhere
in the US) not yet broadcasting at full power. Many are apparently
broadcasting on temporary licenses allowing them to operate at 5%-25% of
their maximum licensed power. This is as an exemption to a full power
license that they already have.

The Fox station here in Austin is broadcasting at 800 watts. That's 800
watts as in eight light bulbs, compared to full ATSC UHF transmitter
power of up to one MILLION watts. (Analog NTSC apparently goes to 5
million watts.) I'm less than 15 miles away, and I can barely get the
tiniest blip out of it with an outside antenna aimed in exactly the
right direction.

I don't have any problem with CBS and ABC here broadcasting at 35.4KW
and 62.5KW instead of 1000KW, though the antenna does have to be pointed
in the right direction.

By the end of 2006, this should not be a problem. But that's still over
two years away.


Here's what the KC MO area looks like:

actual / maximum
4 WDAF FOX - 34 1.1KW / 1000KW
5 KCTV CBS - 24 225KW / 820KW
6 KMOS PBS - 15 322KW
9 KMBC ABC - 7 85KW
19 KCPT PBS - 18 48KW / 55KW
29 KCWE UPN - 31 525KW / 1000KW
41 KSHB NBC - 42 450KW
50 KPXE PAX - 51 1000KW
62 KSMO WB - 47 9KW / 1000KW

I'm sure you'll find a correlation between actual transmitter strength
and reception suckage. It doesn't look too bad, except for WB and FOX.
Note that KMBC shouldn't suck, because VHF digital stations only need
roughtly a tenth the power of UHF stations. 40KW will provide a very
nice signal on channel 13.


Here's the URL which brings up the license info. Replace Kxxx with the
station ID.

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=Kxxx

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Jsheldon wrote:
Randy Sweeney wrote:
The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and
satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006
is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while.

Randy,

Precisely! And as you apparently know, this change is under consideration.
What I have seen suggested is that with this change in counting sets able to
view a digital signal by either cable or sat it still likely would move the
date of compliance out about two years.

Why? I happen to live in an area where the practically the only people that
don't have cable are those who cancelled when they went to satellite dishes.
Market penetration in my area of cable + satellite by itself is in the 90%+
range, so if these counted toward DTV's 85% threshold, my zip-code should have
analog signals turned off TODAY! That's not even counting digital TV's sold to
my area.... Of course, my zip code isn't the only one in the TV's market area
(#2 market - Los Angeles), but areas like mine will pull the average toward the
threshold. It's the "inner city" areas that will make or break the threshold.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Jsheldon wrote:
Randy Sweeney wrote:
The question here is whether Powell and the FCC will rule that cable and
satellite system connected TV's count in the total - if they do, then 2006
is a possibility, if not, it will be quite a while.

Randy,

Precisely! And as you apparently know, this change is under consideration.
What I have seen suggested is that with this change in counting sets able to
view a digital signal by either cable or sat it still likely would move the
date of compliance out about two years.

Why? I happen to live in an area where the practically the only people that
don't have cable are those who cancelled when they went to satellite dishes.
Market penetration in my area of cable + satellite by itself is in the 90%+
range, so if these counted toward DTV's 85% threshold, my zip-code should have
analog signals turned off TODAY! That's not even counting digital TV's sold to
my area.... Of course, my zip code isn't the only one in the TV's market area
(#2 market - Los Angeles), but areas like mine will pull the average toward the
threshold. It's the "inner city" areas that will make or break the threshold.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:44:35 -0400, Jsheldon wrote:
Could you imagine any President allowing the FCC to shut down analog
broadcasting in 2006? ....

Actually, as a result of being forced to convert their headends, I see the
possibility of the cable companies coming together with the TV stations to sue
the FCC if the government DIDN'T shut down analog signals by 12/31/2006 on the
grounds that their costs of compliance wasn't needed after all (as analog
signals would continue to be permitted).... Some HDTV consumers who have
converted would also probably join the broadcasters and cable in a class-action
suit.

There's also the matter that in some of the top TV markets, some stations were
given digital allocations which are still occupied by adjacent market stations'
analog signals - so they CAN'T go digital at full power until the analog signal
clears off.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:44:35 -0400, Jsheldon wrote:
Could you imagine any President allowing the FCC to shut down analog
broadcasting in 2006? ....

Actually, as a result of being forced to convert their headends, I see the
possibility of the cable companies coming together with the TV stations to sue
the FCC if the government DIDN'T shut down analog signals by 12/31/2006 on the
grounds that their costs of compliance wasn't needed after all (as analog
signals would continue to be permitted).... Some HDTV consumers who have
converted would also probably join the broadcasters and cable in a class-action
suit.

There's also the matter that in some of the top TV markets, some stations were
given digital allocations which are still occupied by adjacent market stations'
analog signals - so they CAN'T go digital at full power until the analog signal
clears off.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Bruce Tomlin wrote:
In article . net,
"Mark Jones" wrote:
The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and
some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the
edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas
that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal
with an outside antenna.

That would probably have something to do with most stations (everywhere
in the US) not yet broadcasting at full power. Many are apparently
broadcasting on temporary licenses allowing them to operate at 5%-25% of
their maximum licensed power. This is as an exemption to a full power
license that they already have.

And even so, if you're having problems, it's probably your setup. I'm in Los
Angeles and I am getting six of the San Diego market stations, including their
FOX-6 (DTV-23) which is actually XETV, transmitting 140+ miles away from Mt.
San Miguel in Mexico. The other SD stations' transmitters are closer. I'm
using the same antennas (one for SD, one for LA) that I used for analog - and
the LA-pointed one is the same antenna that I once picked up WCCV (analog 54 -
Arecibo, PR) on when it tropo'ed in from 3,000 miles away.

The Fox station here in Austin is broadcasting at 800 watts. That's 800
watts as in eight light bulbs, compared to full ATSC UHF transmitter
power of up to one MILLION watts. (Analog NTSC apparently goes to 5
million watts.) I'm less than 15 miles away, and I can barely get the
tiniest blip out of it with an outside antenna aimed in exactly the
right direction.

At 15 miles and not counting atmospheric absorption (as I don't know the
frequency), you should get 0.21 microvolts of field strength for 800W ERP.
That's right at the threshold of what you should be able to receive, and with
the gain in any beam (or yagi) TV antenna, that should be enough to overcome
atmospheric and feedline losses. You may be able to do better than "barely."

I don't have any problem with CBS and ABC here broadcasting at 35.4KW ...

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Bruce Tomlin wrote:
In article . net,
"Mark Jones" wrote:
The main problem that I see with HD is the limited broadcast
range compared to analog. I live in the Kansas City area and
some of the stations are not able to reach all of the way to the
edge of the metro area. That excludes people in outlying areas
that currently have no problem receiving the analog signal
with an outside antenna.

That would probably have something to do with most stations (everywhere
in the US) not yet broadcasting at full power. Many are apparently
broadcasting on temporary licenses allowing them to operate at 5%-25% of
their maximum licensed power. This is as an exemption to a full power
license that they already have.

And even so, if you're having problems, it's probably your setup. I'm in Los
Angeles and I am getting six of the San Diego market stations, including their
FOX-6 (DTV-23) which is actually XETV, transmitting 140+ miles away from Mt.
San Miguel in Mexico. The other SD stations' transmitters are closer. I'm
using the same antennas (one for SD, one for LA) that I used for analog - and
the LA-pointed one is the same antenna that I once picked up WCCV (analog 54 -
Arecibo, PR) on when it tropo'ed in from 3,000 miles away.

The Fox station here in Austin is broadcasting at 800 watts. That's 800
watts as in eight light bulbs, compared to full ATSC UHF transmitter
power of up to one MILLION watts. (Analog NTSC apparently goes to 5
million watts.) I'm less than 15 miles away, and I can barely get the
tiniest blip out of it with an outside antenna aimed in exactly the
right direction.

At 15 miles and not counting atmospheric absorption (as I don't know the
frequency), you should get 0.21 microvolts of field strength for 800W ERP.
That's right at the threshold of what you should be able to receive, and with
the gain in any beam (or yagi) TV antenna, that should be enough to overcome
atmospheric and feedline losses. You may be able to do better than "barely."

I don't have any problem with CBS and ABC here broadcasting at 35.4KW ...

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Vince Stone wrote:
... The FCC, IMOHO, has botched the transition by trying to make everyone
happy and not really keeping the public informed. I can buy a cable ready
analog TV today, ...

That's a real understatement.

1) I have found that there are people who still didn't know (until I told
them) of the plans to turn off analog signals.

2) The fact that there are still so many regular (analog only) TV's on the
market today is a real problem.