WFXT-DT power increase?

[Scott Fybush]

Garrett Wollman wrote:

> There aren't "so many channels available", unfortunately, unless you
> want to apply for a couple thousand watts on VHF-low.  Have a look at
> the spacing rules for new allotments -- in particularly, the weird
> "donut" restriction for DTV first-adjacents.  

The donut restriction makes some sense, actually - DTV on first-adjacent 
channels works just fine as long as the relative signal strength of both 
stations is about equal. Start introducing disparities in signal 
strength, as would happen with, say, 29 in Hudson and 28 at Needham, and 
  both stations lose coverage.

(There's a writer for TV Technology magazine who's been beating the drum 
very loudly to warn of some other weirdnesses that the FCC isn't taking 
into account - there are apparently intermod products that result from 
having DTV stations on first-adjacent channels that can affect reception 
of other stations up and down the dial.)

> The ultimate truth is likely to be that neither Fox nor Tribune cares
> about fringe OTA viewers; there just aren't enough of them to justify
> making the large discretionary expenditure that would be required to
> make a channel change at this point, and in any case that audience is
> unsaleable anyway.  (No business that far out could afford to buy
> Boston or Hartford spot time to serve their local audience, and in any
> case the locals have cable or satellite anyway, if they watch TV at
> all.)

It seems to me that the population base around Worcester is crying out 
for a test of DTS (distributed transmission system) on-channel boosters. 
They're said to work well on DTV, and there's enough in-market 
population around Worcester to make the prospect financially viable, at 
least for the bigger stations. (Manchester/Concord, too.)

Ditto for the New Haven, Waterbury and maybe even New London areas in 
the Hartford market...

s