WLS to Quit VHF Game

[tripinva]

It finally happened, ABC has applied to move WLS from channel 7 at 4.75 kW up to channel 44 at 473.33 kW.  The full paperwork is not yet in, so I don't know any details beyond that, but it should be coming in the next few days...

- Trip

[Dave]

I wonder if it has to do with WLS-TV & WOOD-TV interfering with each other.  There is some overlap around Benton Harbor Michigan with both signals.  Lake Michigan doesn't help with the signals being able to travel farther than the estimated coverage shows.  I don't believe it's the VHF allocation itself.  I believe it's a combination of 2 channel 7's being so close, and most people (not counting those in apartment complexes & condos, where outdoor antennas are difficult to have) not having the right antenna for VHF (whether Low VHF or High VHF).  I have an Aunt who refuses to have an outdoor antenna, due to the town ordinance requiring the antenna to be on top of the roof, and she doesn't want it on her roof.  She wants it along side her house.  So, she doesn't get 7 or 12, nor does she get all of the UHF stations either. 

Too bad 8 isn't available, since WMVS moved from 10 to 8, along with WWMT from 3 to 8.  I still would like the see WLS stay on the VHF.  I get them better on 7 than I did on 52.  9 looks like it's open in Chicago.  I wouldn't mind seeing them on that channel, though I really would have liked to have seen WGN take that channel back.

I'm concerned the new channel could create the pixelation they had when they were on 52.  WMAQ on 29 has been that way since June 12th when analog was shutoff.  I wonder if WLS is still trying for a translator on 32, or drop that. 

[radioman148]

Wasn't WOOD formerly on 8 a long time ago?

[dhett]

Wasn't WOOD formerly on 8 a long time ago?

WOOD analog was on channel 8 until two months ago.

[tripinva]

I wonder if it has to do with WLS-TV & WOOD-TV interfering with each other.

That's why they can't increase power.

I don't believe it's the VHF allocation itself.  I believe it's a combination of 2 channel 7's being so close, and most people (not counting those in apartment complexes & condos, where outdoor antennas are difficult to have) not having the right antenna for VHF (whether Low VHF or High VHF).  I have an Aunt who refuses to have an outdoor antenna, due to the town ordinance requiring the antenna to be on top of the roof, and she doesn't want it on her roof.  She wants it along side her house.  So, she doesn't get 7 or 12, nor does she get all of the UHF stations either. 

It's the allotment.  WHDH in Boston was running 30 kW, which is more than WLS would ever be allowed to run, and gave up on it due to too many reception issues and now want to operate channel 42.  KMBC on 7 was running a whopping 85 kW and gave up on it for UHF 29 at 1000 kW.

Sure, if everyone had outdoor roof antennas, I'm sure it'd be fine except for thunderstorms and the tons of electrical devices that generate noise these days, but that's not the world we live in.  I've spoken with plenty of engineers who've done signal testing on their VHF signals and found the signal literally does not make it inside buildings.  Even outdoors, compared to a similar UHF, the strengths are way too low.  They would need at least 10 times the power to get indoors at a usable level, which is impossible to run in most instances.

9 looks like it's open in Chicago.

It's not.  Spacing problem.  Too close to WWTO-10.

I wonder if WLS is still trying for a translator on 32, or drop that.

I imagine drop it.  If they're going to build out a full-powered station on 44, they might as well drop the translator.

- Trip

[Dave]

I wonder if it has to do with WLS-TV & WOOD-TV interfering with each other.

That's why they can't increase power.

I don't believe it's the VHF allocation itself.  I believe it's a combination of 2 channel 7's being so close, and most people (not counting those in apartment complexes & condos, where outdoor antennas are difficult to have) not having the right antenna for VHF (whether Low VHF or High VHF).  I have an Aunt who refuses to have an outdoor antenna, due to the town ordinance requiring the antenna to be on top of the roof, and she doesn't want it on her roof.  She wants it along side her house.  So, she doesn't get 7 or 12, nor does she get all of the UHF stations either. 

It's the allotment.  WHDH in Boston was running 30 kW, which is more than WLS would ever be allowed to run, and gave up on it due to too many reception issues and now want to operate channel 42.  KMBC on 7 was running a whopping 85 kW and gave up on it for UHF 29 at 1000 kW.

Sure, if everyone had outdoor roof antennas, I'm sure it'd be fine except for thunderstorms and the tons of electrical devices that generate noise these days, but that's not the world we live in.  I've spoken with plenty of engineers who've done signal testing on their VHF signals and found the signal literally does not make it inside buildings.  Even outdoors, compared to a similar UHF, the strengths are way too low.  They would need at least 10 times the power to get indoors at a usable level, which is impossible to run in most instances.

9 looks like it's open in Chicago.

It's not.  Spacing problem.  Too close to WWTO-10.

I wonder if WLS is still trying for a translator on 32, or drop that.

I imagine drop it.  If they're going to build out a full-powered station on 44, they might as well drop the translator.

- Trip

If 9 is too close to 10 in LaSalle, then how come WWMT is on WOOD's old channel of 8?  WOOD & WWMT's transmitters are much closer than WGN & WWTO are.  Chicago has on the UHF adjacent channels 50 & 51, and neither seem to interfere with each other.

As for the VHF, I still stand firm that the allotment isn't the issue.  The only issue could be WOOD & WLS interfering with each other. 
With many of the newer subdivisions in my area either have no rooftop antenna at all, or one of those outdoor antennas that aren't optimized for any part of the VHF.  Also, VHF in Chicago can't have the power increase that other markets can have, due to the skyscrapers' height playing a role in how much a station can put out in power.  Grand Rapids stations' towers aren't as tall as Chicagos' skyscrapers, and Chicago stations must reduce their power to comply with the license they have.  The thing is most people (like my Aunt Dawn) seem to prefer using rabbit ears over using an ugly looking outdoor element antenna (as many look at them).  The type of home I have requires an outdoor antenna, due to no signal of any type being able to penetrate my home, even with plenty of windows.  I can't get VHF, UHF, FM , or whatever the band Sirius Satellite radio uses.  I'm in Grade A coverage, and get both full power VHF stations with the outdoor antenna.  I dread that WLS might go back to their old antenna for digital, and have the issues I have with other UHF stations that transmit from the Sears Tower.  I'm one of the few that has no problem getting VHF on the digital, including when WBBM was on 3.

[tripinva]

If 9 is too close to 10 in LaSalle, then how come WWMT is on WOOD's old channel of 8?  WOOD & WWMT's transmitters are much closer than WGN & WWTO are.  Chicago has on the UHF adjacent channels 50 & 51, and neither seem to interfere with each other.

Co-located adjacent channels work fine.  It's when there's a limited distance between them that problems show up.  The received strengths have to be similar for one to not demolish the edge of the other.

As for the VHF, I still stand firm that the allotment isn't the issue.  The only issue could be WOOD & WLS interfering with each other. 
With many of the newer subdivisions in my area either have no rooftop antenna at all, or one of those outdoor antennas that aren't optimized for any part of the VHF.  Also, VHF in Chicago can't have the power increase that other markets can have, due to the skyscrapers' height playing a role in how much a station can put out in power.

Even stations that can increase power gave up either due to electrical interference due to electric motors or power lines or thunderstorms, or due to consumer complaints due to an inability or an unwillingness to have an outdoor antenna.  And if Mobile DTV takes off, VHF is NOT going to be the place to be.

  Grand Rapids stations' towers aren't as tall as Chicagos' skyscrapers, and Chicago stations must reduce their power to comply with the license they have.  The thing is most people (like my Aunt Dawn) seem to prefer using rabbit ears over using an ugly looking outdoor element antenna (as many look at them).  The type of home I have requires an outdoor antenna, due to no signal of any type being able to penetrate my home, even with plenty of windows.  I can't get VHF, UHF, FM , or whatever the band Sirius Satellite radio uses.  I'm in Grade A coverage, and get both full power VHF stations with the outdoor antenna.  I dread that WLS might go back to their old antenna for digital, and have the issues I have with other UHF stations that transmit from the Sears Tower.  I'm one of the few that has no problem getting VHF on the digital, including when WBBM was on 3.

I'm glad you're lucky like that.  I have a station on channel 3 digital and a thunderstorm 100 miles away will cause it to drop out and become unwatchable.  Light switches, shredder, blender, vacuum cleaner, washing machine, any of these items and more make the signal unwatchable.  This is digital VHF.

- Trip

[Dave]

I'm glad you're lucky like that.  I have a station on channel 3 digital and a thunderstorm 100 miles away will cause it to drop out and become unwatchable.  Light switches, shredder, blender, vacuum cleaner, washing machine, any of these items and more make the signal unwatchable.  This is digital VHF.

- Trip

I'm not saying that VHF is prone to interference.  I did have small amounts of pixelation when WBBM had their digital on 3 during thunderstorms.  It didn't affect the signal as much (at least for me) during storms as many of the UHF's that are on the Sears Tower during sunny days.  WCIU, WWME-LD, WMAQ, WCPX, WSNS, WTTW, & WXFT all have serious reception issues for me.  I still dread that WLS will return to have serious pixelation issues once they go back to their old UHF antenna, like they did when they were on 52.

As for other markets that are on the VHF, Milwaukee still has 1 VHF, and WMVS is on 8, and has their signal directional to protect WWMT Grand Rapids.  I don't know how well that's working out.  The Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo markets had only 3 VHF, but they added 2 more VHF stations (1 of them on Low VHF).  WWMT went from 3 (2 for DT) to 8, WOOD to 7 from 8, WZZM went back to 13, and WGVK was a low power station on 52, but went full power on 5, and is a simulcast of WGVU on 11, which WGVU was on 35.

I wouldn't be surprised if WGN might switch channels later on.  Even though they have a null to protect WXMI Grand Rapids, Lake Michgan is known for allowing signals to travel further than it's supposed to go, due to nearly flat surface (I don't know about the signal reflecting off of the water too).

[Dave]

I'm reviving this thread.  It seems that WLS-TV isn't completely abandoning channel 7.  They're still planning to relocate to channel 44 once they get a CP.  They put in an APP to make channel 7 a translator.  Channel 7 would still cover the same area as it does at 4.75kw, though they're currently on a temporary power increase of 9.5kw.  If WLS-TV is really serious about keeping channel 7 as a translator, and make 44 the primary channel, then I wonder how they're gonna have the PSIP channels show up for both.  I wish for digital that the FCC didn't mandate PSIP, which actually is holding onto the past.  It actually makes it that more confusing, as I see it.  I'd rather have the channel lineup go by the RF channel, and not the PSIP channel.

Here's the link for the FCC info on WLS-TV, for what i can find: http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=WLS-TV

[w9wi]

I'm reviving this thread.  It seems that WLS-TV isn't completely abandoning channel 7.  They're still planning to relocate to channel 44 once they get a CP.  They put in an APP to make channel 7 a translator.  Channel 7 would still cover the same area as it does at 4.75kw, though they're currently on a temporary power increase of 9.5kw.  If WLS-TV is really serious about keeping channel 7 as a translator, and make 44 the primary channel, then I wonder how they're gonna have the PSIP channels show up for both.  I wish for digital that the FCC didn't mandate PSIP, which actually is holding onto the past.  It actually makes it that more confusing, as I see it.  I'd rather have the channel lineup go by the RF channel, and not the PSIP channel.

WTVF in Nashville has lit up a "replacement translator" on channel 50 right under their channel 5 antenna.  Both transmitters are running identical PSIP.  (I strongly suspect they're just splitting an identical datafeed between the two transmitters)

On my receivers, I get two channel 5's.  (and two copies of each of their subchannels)  I could go in and manually delete whichever one I didn't want to use.

I suppose worst-case you get only the channel 44 (in my case, channel 50) transmitter - the one that scanned in last. 

If there was no channel remapping, WLS would have been on three different channels.  As would WBBM.  Remapping is only confusing to techies.  Of the ordinary viewers who've called the station I work for, NOT A ONE has been confused by remapping.