Today I received a call from a business person in the 1500 block of Neubrecht Road. She was mad at the fact that channel 8 on her TV keeps cutting in and out on her TV. For those of you that don't know where this is at, it's roughly 2.5 miles east of our transmitter. Her voicemail stated that we (WLIO) needed to "get it together".I called her back and tried asking some questions. She said she didn't have an indoor antenna, but her brother who is an electronic genius installed the antenna. I asked if she knew the model of the antenna. The answer was no. I asked if it was a UHF only antenna, and I explained that VHF signals are not often received on UHF antennas. In sort of an indignant voice she said "I don't think my brother would have gotten the wrong antenna." In the end there was nothing I could do because she was convinced it was our fault.
I tried to explain there are people in Findlay, B.G. and Sidney watching us with no problem, and she is the only person who complained. That, to me, would want me to check my antenna system. But I don't think she wanted to listen. This is sad because in 99% of the reception cases, by going over what is happening, we can resolve reception problems. This is where the collective sigh comes in.
The irony is, a friend and I were thinking of contacting their company for some work on one of our custom projects. Judging from the conversation, I don't think that's going to happen now. Cue Homer - "DOH!"
[ 3 comments ] ( 75 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 417 )The Central Michigan University Board of Trustees has approved a proposal to submit an offer to purchase WFUM TV in Flint for no more than $1 million.
The television station, currently owned and operated by the University of Michigan, would broadcast from Bay City to the metro Detroit area, Interim University President Kathy Wilbur said the board viewed it as an opportunity to significantly expand the university’s coverage into critical areas such as southeast Michigan.
“It allows us to expand academic programs on the behalf of CMU, especially through Prof Ed,” Wilbur said. “We’re so focused on our enrollment question and retention question, this gives us another avenue in which to pursue that.”
The Board met in special session today in the President’s Conference Room in the Bovee University Center to discuss the television station.
A purchase and interim management agreement will now be drafted so CMU can take over the station as soon as possible.
“This is very common in the broadcast world because of the normal delays in getting approval for a change in ownership through the FCC,” said Ed Grant, general manager for CMU Public Broadcasting.
WFUM is presently owned by the University of Michigan with a transmitter located in Goodrich MI, and has an application to move to channel 28 with 500,000 watts with an antenna at 258 meters (846 feet). The station is likely going to remain an PBS station under Central Michigan University ownership. Goodrich is WNW of Detroit, between Flint and Detroit. One change that probably will happen is a call sign change to better reflect the new ownership.
[ add comment ] ( 22 views ) | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 309 )This is the WLIO Channel 8 Transmitter as it normally looks...
and with the doors open....
The cabinet on the left is the eight power amplifiers that generate 4,230 watts of power. The power then goes up to the antennas where it's amplified to the 27,500 watts ERP. On the right you see the dual exciters and the controllers.
Click on an image to SUPERSIZE it.
[ add comment ] ( 17 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 221 )Samsung has rolled out a chip for the ATSC mobile DTV standard. It combines RF and digital circuits on one substrate to simplify hand held receiver manufacturing:
http://televisionbroadcast.com/article/89072
Fred sez: I think there is a lot of benefit to handheld DTV, but the one thing that bothers me is how soon will it be till we see someone driving down the road watching TV. And you thought cellphones were a distraction?
[ add comment ] ( 10 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 179 )I know everyone likes pictures, so here is a few of our operations center.
The picture below is the east half of the master control room. Denny (L) is seated in front of the WOHL ABC 35.1 Master Control switcher. Becky (R) is on the WOHL CBS 35.2 switcher.
Mike is on the west half of the master control room, and is in front of the WLIO NBC 8.1 Master Control switcher. The switcher on the right is the WLIO Fox 8.2 Master Control switcher, which is presently in automation mode.
Jon is in our Satellite Room, which is just north of the MCR. The satellite room is where all the syndicated shows come in and are recorded for playback later. At the present time we record 422 shows a week. Everything is recorded on hard drive for playback.
[ 3 comments ] ( 42 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 186 )PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322
DA 09-2236
October 16, 2009
FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology Releases Laboratory Report on Technical Testing of DTV Converter Boxes for Certification under NTIA’s Coupon Program
The Federal Communications Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology has released a report on tests of digital-to-analog TV (DTV) converter boxes.
The report, OET Report FCC/OET 09-TR-1003, entitled “DTV Converter Box Test Program -- Results and Lessons Learned” (DTV Converter Box Test Report), describes methodologies, results and lessons learned in over 50,000 individual engineering tests that were performed on 136 DTV converter boxes that were submitted for certification as “coupon eligible” by various manufacturers in the period August 2007 to January 2009 and on 17 converter box samples that were purchased from retail outlets through February 2009.
The tests were completed in March 2009. Most of the tests were performed for the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and served as one step in the NTIA’s approval process of converter boxes under the Government’s TV Converter Box Coupon Program and were intended to ensure that all of the boxes certified as coupon eligible passed NTIA’s conservative performance specifications before going on the market.
The DTV Converter Box Test Report, which follows in the tradition of previous reports on tests of television receiver performance by the FCC’s Laboratory, is intended to inform engineers involved in designing DTV receivers, TV broadcasters, measurement technicians, standards developers and the technical community of engineering data on the performance of the converter boxes and of functional and performance issues that might apply to other DTV receiver products as well.
Because information for this purpose is best described as statistical measures of performance, the results are presented without identifying brands or models of converter boxes. Consequently, the report does not provide information that would be meaningful to consumers for selecting a converter box. The testing evaluated a sample of each converter box submitted for certification to check for compliance with NTIA’s technical standards for such devices.
These standards address numerous aspects of radiofrequency performance and other functionalities. To provide additional information on certain other features that are of interest to the technical community, the testing also examined some attributes of the converter boxes that extend beyond the NTIA requirements.
The report indicates that 116 of the 136 converter box models tested by the FCC Laboratory eventually passed all tests to satisfy the NTIA requirements and were offered to the public as coupon-eligible converter boxes, though many required upgrades to software - and in some cases modifications to the hardware - before passing. (The NTIA’s list of 191 approved converter boxes includes minor variants of the 116 models that passed all required tests.)
The report also identifies the initial failures of converter boxes to satisfy NTIA requirements and presents statistics on the RF performance of those that were ultimately approved. It further identifies potential issues for further consideration by DTV standards committees. Those issues include the potential need for add-on channel scan capability and more detailed specification of the requirements for handling future changes to the parental control system through a downloadable rating system.
The report shows that the approved converter boxes exhibited significant RF performance improvements in ability to receive weak signals on VHF channels, ability to reject interference from strong signals on other channels, and ability to process signals received in the presence of severe multipath (of particular importance in indoor reception locations) as compared to DTV receivers that were on the market in 2005 and 2006 (as tested by the FCC Laboratory and reported in 2005 and 2007).
The areas in which initial failures to meet the NTIA standards occurred included parental controls (especially downloadable ratings capability), closed captioning, video modes, daylight savings time implementation and ability to reject potentially interfering signals on certain neighboring channels. In most cases, these failures were corrected by the manufacturer and the box was then re-tested for compliance.
Of the approved converter box models, 72 included an RF pass-through capability to allow reception of analog TV broadcasts on the connected television. The report indicates that those boxes exhibited no significant degradation in DTV reception sensitivity or interference rejection performance relative to non-pass-through boxes.
The testing also found that the approved converter boxes consumed an average of 6.6 watts when operating and 0.8 watts in sleep mode. Because the tested units were supplied by the manufacturers as “production samples,” some of the tests were repeated on 17 “audit samples” that were purchased from store shelves. No statistically significant performance differences were found between the purchased samples and the corresponding samples the manufacturers provided to the certification program.
Finally, the FCC Laboratory’s test experience in previous programs and in the lead-up to and performance of the converter-box program yielded a number of lessons that are documented in the report and that may be of value to others performing such tests. The report states that those lessons include the need to use video containing motion in tests of video modes, the need for daylight savings time tests that extend beyond those of current test software, the impact of automatic-gain-control loops with memory in some receivers, and a methodology to assess the impact of unintended phase noise from DTV signal generators.
For additional information, contact Steve Martin, Steve.Martin@fcc.gov, of the Office of Engineering and Technology, Technical Research Branch, at (301) 362-3000.
[ add comment ] ( 8 views ) | permalink | related link |
( 2.9 / 167 )According to a posting in the AV Forum, "We (WISE) are scheduled to make the WISE-DT19 to DT18 transition next Thursday October 15th at 12 noon EST. Please let whoever you know that they will need to rescan after the transistion. We will be running crawls to alert viewers."
[ add comment ] ( 5 views ) | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 138 )Posted in the AVS Forum. Click RELATED for original story.
"The WISE-DT upgrade is complete. We plan on turning on the new transmitter sometime next week. We are allowing time for cable and satellite companies to be ready. Also, there will be crawls starting shortly to tell everyone to rescan their channels after the switchover to RF channel 18."
[ add comment ] ( 21 views ) | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 174 )Digital VHF Needs A Power Boost
By Harry A. Jessell
TVNewsCheck, Sep 24 2009, 12:06 PM ET
Perhaps the biggest surprise of the DTV transition has been the poor performance of many VHF stations as digital-only stations. On the whole, their signals don't seem to reach as far or penetrate buildings as well as those of their UHF counterparts.
Since the June 12 analog cut-off, broadcast engineers at VHF stations have been trying to sort out the problems of digital Vs. And in this effort, they have had the support of consulting engineers, experts on the peculiar behavior of radio frequencies.
Among those deep into DTV is Richard Mertz, a principal with Cavell, Mertz & Associates.
In this interview with TVNewsCheck, Mertz says high-band VHF (channels 7-13) for fixed and mobile reception can be remedied with more transmission power, something that he hopes the FCC will consider granting. As for low-band VHF, his message is simple: Abandon all hope.
An edited transcript:
What's the problem with reception of digital VHF signals?
A lot of people don't want to install an outside antenna and, if you recall, the planning factors for DTV are based on a properly oriented, high-gain antenna mounted 30 feet in the air outside. Rabbit ears inside don't take into account the attenuation that the building materials in a home provides and or the reflective surfaces in a home that cause multipath.
I remember as a kid fighting with the rabbit ears and trying to tune in the station and you got an acceptable picture. Now with digital, you can't do that. Kind of getting the signal is not acceptable anymore. You won't get a picture with a ghost. You'll get nothing. I know from my own experience: A lot of people don't want to get up and move the rabbit ears around.
Another problem is the receivers. We have no receiver standards. We have decoding standards, but we don't have performance standards for the receiver. So depending on which receiver you have, you have different sensitivities, you have different abilities. Some of the decoder boxes can handle a severe amount of multipath; others cannot.
In some cases, in trying to get a good signal, people overdo it. I've been to several homes where people are complaining they can't get high-band VHF stations and the problem is they put an antenna amplifier between the antenna and the converter box. A lot of these amplifiers are noisy or they're overloading the front end of the converter boxes.
You mentioned high-band VHF. What about low-band VHF. Is that a particular problem?
We don't recommend using those channels. I know that several people have gone back to ch. 6, but I don't think that's a wise idea. There have been different studies done and papers published that talk about man-made noise, celestial noise in those frequencies.
So, if you're in the low V band, you should be thinking about getting out of there.
I don't think they should have gone there in the first place. It's spectrum the commission may recover eventually. I don't think it works very well. Propagation-wise, studies years ago suggested that high-band VHF was the best place to be and we tried to move people there as we saw fit.
What is the inherent problem with high-band VHF that makes it harder to receive?
This is a multifaceted problem, but it's basically power limitation, especially in the Northeast. You need more power to overcome building attenuation and get to indoor antennas.
The maximum power you're allowed in high-band VHF is 30 kilowatts at 305 meters of average terrain. The reason they did that was because they were working towards replication of the analog grades. Some of the planning factors may have been very conservative and didn't really take into effect how people actually watch TV over the air.
And an amplifier in the antenna line won't help?
Typically, you try not to have the amplifier. Let me give you an aside. We had a UHF LPTV client that was being picked up and carried by a local cable system, but the signal would drop out periodically. They had a dedicated antenna for this one low-power television station. I talked to them on the phone and discovered that the antenna was pointed in the wrong direction. Then, I asked if the signal passed through any amplifiers. Yes. Can you unplug the amplifier and bypass it? Can you plug the antenna directly into the receiver? We can. Do you have enough signal now? Oh, more than enough. They haven't had a drop-out since.
What is it that the amplifier does that causes the signal problems?
It can either overload the initial stages in the receiver or it can create noise that the receiver thinks is data because of the nature of the ATSC signal. So by taking the amplifier out you remove a variable that creates trouble.
If more power is the solution, how do broadcasters go about getting it?
We have been able to secure for several clients experimental authorization at higher power, but when you get an experimental authorization you're creating more than a half a percent new interference to other people and you have to demonstrate that you're not going to harm them. I've done measurements to show that our stations are not going to harm these other stations.
But you need a permanent solution. Would you like to see the FCC increase the power for VHF stations?
I would like to revisit the power caps, especially the Northeastern Zone One. I'm working with different groups to take the commission's temperature to see if it would entertain this at this time.
In your opinion, do you think you can jack up the power limits for everybody without causing a lot of interference among the stations in the band?
There's going to have to be a cooperative effort among all the broadcasters to increase power above the levels that they currently have. Everybody in high-band VHF is now seeing difficulties and they would like to overcome them.
We are close to having a mobile standard that's been created to piggyback on the ATSC signal. Is that going to work on the VHF channels?
It's going to have similar problems. With UHF the wavelengths are actually much smaller. Something like this [holds up a Blackberry] has an antenna that operates at 2 Ghz so the antenna's fairly small. At VHF frequencies, your antenna's got to be a quarter wave length. The middle of the band is about 15 inches. How do you fit that 15-inch antenna into here? That's part of the problem with using VHF for mobile. But I understand from some of my clients that they've seen demonstrations on mobile where it works just fine at V. I don't know how much of a problem it is. I'm only getting anecdotal information from clients.
Assuming that VHF mobile reception is a problem, how would you fix it?
Adding more power might be the answer. I don't know. More efficient antennas in the handheld devices might be the answer. You may have to put amplified antennas in there and then, of course, you have the inherent noise problems. So it's a multifaceted problem and I don't think that there's an easy answer to it yet.
What about the single-frequency networks and repeater stations. Is that something that broadcasters should be thinking about for VHF mobile broadcasting?
It depends on the terrain in your area. A single-frequency network using a series of smaller transmitters might be an answer. The commission's already authorized that. Given what limited information I have right now, I would like to see some terrain blockage between the main transmitter or central transmitter and some of these outlying transmitters to avoid interference.
Do TV broadcasters still care about their broadcast signals?
That depends on cable penetration. Where there's almost a 100 percent cable penetration I don't think they're so worried. The few off-the-air people that they have, they work with them and get it resolved. But in other areas where there's only 60 to 80 percent cable penetration, it's still important. And some markets where we work don't have direct satellite service yet. DirecTV and Dish don't carry the local signals.
Click RELATED for link to story
Personal note: I'm wondering now, although WLIO Channel 8 is enjoying great coverage with hardly any complaints, if we should not file for 60,000 watts, or more. After all, if this is going to be the norm, then, why not? I also wonder if we shouldn't ask the FCC to boost WOHL Channel 35 up from 9,000 watts to 20,000 watts.
I know I sound like a broken record, but the issue is not power, it's quality of signal.
[ 4 comments ] ( 55 views ) | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 179 )I get one conversation, e-mail, or letter from frustrated people about the digital change every day. Sometimes they are cordial, other times they are very accusatory.
For the difficult people it comes down to calming them down, listening to their concerns, and then asking the right questions.
For example; most of the calls I'm still getting revolve around the Rabbit Ears antennas. Contrary to how much they cost, or what their claim is, they are a crappy antenna.
One fellow complained loudly and insisted that WLIO is operating with only a few watts of power. "Nobody can get you guys", he said. Of course we know this is not true as many people get us just fine, from Sidney to Bowling Green, and from Marion to Ft Wayne.
Statistically, WLIO has had the least amount of calls of all other stations I have polled. No where near the call volume of other markets the same size, and far less than the other stations in our corporate chain. But, we occasionally get calls.
As I said, some are cordial and just curious about why things work the way they do. Some are confused such as; "why is WOHL Fox now WLIO, and why is WLQP and WLMO now WOHL?" And just today I got an e-mail asking, "I noticed that WLMO CBS-38 is not on the air. Is it coming back?" The answer to this is a definite NO. Analog is gone. All our transmissions will be in digital.
More and more I'm finding that the rabbit ear antenna problem is intensifying, and stations are getting calls from viewers that say the signal drops out, or it's not there at all. I know WLS in Chicago has had to change channels because of the small antenna syndrome. Other stations that are high band VHF, or low channel UHF (14-30), are having problems. The rabbit ears will work to some extent on higher channels. But for lower channels they won't perform.
The only sane advice I can offer anyone with reception problems is;
1 - If you can, install a conventional antenna system with a Yagi VHF and screen-panel UHF antenna. Don't go on the cheap. Cheap antennas give cheap results. If you need some recommendations, contact me. There is some logic to "you get what you pay for".
2 - If you are using rabbit ears, or a flat panel/pancake antenna, or one of those halo antennas ... those are a compromise to a REAL antenna. You might be able to get some stations, but you'll never get as many or more stations than you would if you install a conventional antenna. And it's not the station's fault that you can't get reception.
3 - If you want help, calmly ask. If you want to vent, call your Congressman. All of us at WLIO can help if you a calm, civil, and willing to listen. We also have information we can send you, and know where to find resources if you need them. What we can't do is come to your home and fix your TV problems, buy you what you need, or stay on the phone if you want to yell or swear.
I say this because so often I get asked, "are you going to raise your power?" "When will you transmit better?" "How come you guys don't send your signal out this way?" In each case I have to ask, "why do you think it's us?"
When it comes to digital television, cooler heads have to prevail, and logic has to trump emotions. Once you loose your cool and toss accusations around, or allow yourself to be influenced by a disgruntled friend or co-worker, then you have no ability to resolve your reception problem.
Take for example the call I received today. Time-Warner cable had a massive outage in western Ohio. As I type this blog every one of the 100+ channels on TWC is frozen and there is no audio. However, I got a call from someone in the community, obviously frustrated. Give a listen.
Digital television is here and like CDs, unleaded gas, satellite radio, Twitter, and many new technologies, it takes a while to understand things. The one thing everyone must do is keep calm, ask questions, and listen to the voices of reason.
[ 3 comments ] ( 54 views ) | permalink |
( 3 / 174 )
Random Entry
