ABC OTA Coverage Down
K. B.
ABC has a 1% problem.
All four major networks lost a bit of their nationwide
coverage following the digital TV transition.
~~~
Kirk Bayne
alt.video.digital-tv Home Page
<http://avdtv.tripod.com/avdtv.htm>
Steve Stone
> <http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118011085.html?categoryid=14&cs=1&ref=bd_tv>
>
> ABC has a 1% problem.
>
> All four major networks lost a bit of their nationwide
> coverage following the digital TV transition.
>
Not surprising,
since nationally they seem to call VHF 7 their home,
and most are transmitting at power levels that don't reach out to the
edges of their former analog footprint.
Sal M. Onella
> K. B. wrote:
> > <http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118011085.html?categoryid=14&cs=1&r...>
>
> > ABC has a 1% problem.
>
> > All four major networks lost a bit of their nationwide
> > coverage following the digital TV transition.
>
> Not surprising,
> since nationally they seem to call VHF 7 their home,
> and most are transmitting at power levels that don't reach out to the
> edges of their former analog footprint.
Indeed, some small-market stations may have transmitters with less
power. However, I see Southern California with an opposite view.
Before digital, KABC-7, Los Angeles, was rarely watchable in San Diego
due to strong interference from local Channel 8's video carrier. Now,
with both being digital, I get KABC 99% of the time. I have a low-band
VHF antenna on my chimney, only about seven feet above the peak of my
single-story home's roof.
Sal
TJ
Around here, the ABC affiliate moved from VHF 9 to UHF 17, and they
built a new tower that from my house looks to be 200-250 feet higher
than the original analog one. They lost some OTA viewers, gained others,
making the overall penetration about the same.
The CBS affiliate, on the other hand, is the big loser locally when it
came to OTA penetration. That station, once one of the best-run in
Syracuse, has had years of decline, and the financial problems that go
with it. Consequently, the money to install the facilities needed to
maintain coverage just wasn't there. They also lost out when it came to
the frequency allocation lottery. That station moved from VHF 5 to UHF
47, and they still use the same tower they used for analog. Those two
things alone would reduce their footprint, even had they increased
effective power.
The NBC affiliate moved from VHF 3 to UHF 24, once the PBS station
vacated that frequency. They too built a new tower, much higher than the
original analog tower, and their footprint is also supposed to be much
the same size. The PBS affiliate, by the way, is broadcast from the same
tower, and it's footprint is much the same, too. (Not that that is
germain to the discussion, as it seems that PBS isn't considered a
"major" network.)
The big winner locally is the FOX affiliate. They too built a new tower,
and they moved from UHF 68 to UHF 19. That made a huge change in their
footprint. In my own house the FOX affiliate was one of the most
difficult to receive in some rooms in analog, highly affected by
multipath ghosting and snow - especially when the wind blew. With
digital it's rock-steady in all rooms, with no audio or video dropouts,
ever.
My own conclusion is that a lot of the digital footprint we see now
depended on how well the station was doing and how much cash they had
available when they were deciding how to implement digital transmission.
Well-run stations with enlightened, forward-thinking management did OK,
while others faltered. Sounds a lot like the rest of the economy,
doesn't it?
TJ