From aerie.ma@comcast.net Thu Jul 4 08:53:36 2019 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:53:36 -0400 Subject: Repack Message-ID: <0a3001d53267$7f547780$7dfd6680$@comcast.net> I noticed WBZ-TV is running information about the channel repack due to happen on 2 August, advising people to rescan as of that date. In the repack, WBZ-TV will move from RF 30 to RF 20. At the same time, WCVB will move from RF 20 to RF 33. My question is, why doesn't WCVB stay where it is on RF 20, and WBZ-TV just move from RF 30 to RF 33? I'm sure there must be a reason, but what is it? From m_carney@yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 13:02:59 2019 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:02:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Repack In-Reply-To: <0a3001d53267$7f547780$7dfd6680$@comcast.net> References: <0a3001d53267$7f547780$7dfd6680$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <549055837.2987061.1562259779245@mail.yahoo.com> If the station doesn't move they don't get government money. And since tower work has to be done anyway (for WNEU to move into Boston) everyone else down in Needham took advantage of the situation. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 10:43 AM, Jim Hall wrote: I noticed WBZ-TV is running information about the channel repack due to happen on 2 August, advising people to rescan as of that date. In the repack, WBZ-TV will move from RF 30 to RF 20. At the same time, WCVB will move from RF 20 to RF 33. My question is, why doesn't WCVB stay where it is on RF 20, and WBZ-TV just move from RF 30 to RF 33? I'm sure there must be a reason, but what is it? From scott@fybush.com Thu Jul 4 12:47:15 2019 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:47:15 -0700 Subject: Repack In-Reply-To: <0a3001d53267$7f547780$7dfd6680$@comcast.net> References: <0a3001d53267$7f547780$7dfd6680$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Moving both makes them both eligible for repack dollars, for one thing. And it preserves the precise interference relationships between co-channel signals. There is a very definite method to this madness. On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:40 AM Jim Hall wrote: > I noticed WBZ-TV is running information about the channel repack due to > happen on 2 August, advising people to rescan as of that date. In the > repack, WBZ-TV will move from RF 30 to RF 20. At the same time, WCVB will > move from RF 20 to RF 33. My question is, why doesn't WCVB stay where it is > on RF 20, and WBZ-TV just move from RF 30 to RF 33? I'm sure there must be > a > reason, but what is it? > > From aerie.ma@comcast.net Tue Jul 23 12:25:47 2019 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:25:47 -0400 Subject: WLAW claim Message-ID: <017501d54173$49a4cfc0$dcee6f40$@comcast.net> Just browsing through some Broadcasting Magazine yearbooks at americanradiohistory.com. In the 1949 yearbook (page 149), WLAW Lawrence has a full page ad proclaiming itself as "New England's most powerful radio station". On what basis did WLAW make this claim, considering that even with 50 kW from Burlington, it is still a Class B (old Class II) station, with WBZ and WTIC as Class A (Class I-A and I-B)? Now, where I live in Andover, 680 is much stronger than 1030 given the distances involved and the radiation patterns, but is/was 680 really "New England's most powerful radio station"? From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jul 23 23:19:20 2019 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:19:20 -0400 Subject: WLAW claim In-Reply-To: <017501d54173$49a4cfc0$dcee6f40$@comcast.net> References: <017501d54173$49a4cfc0$dcee6f40$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <77eab9e3-f35b-56aa-c990-c59193317b3a@attorneyross.com> Well, WBZ and WLAW both were at 50,000 watts, so I suppose by that measure, they were equally powerful.? Both had directional arrays, so maybe one or the other had a more powerful signal in some direction than the other.? The difference between a Class I and Class II station wasn't necessarily power, it was in how many other stations in North America there were on the same channel. I don't remember ever seeing an explanation of the difference between Class I-A and I-B, but from looking at which stations were which, I noticed that Class I-A stations had no other co-channel stations competing with them anywhere in North America, while Class I-B stations might have one other, on the other side of the continent. On 7/23/2019 12:25 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > Just browsing through some Broadcasting Magazine yearbooks at > americanradiohistory.com. In the 1949 yearbook (page 149), WLAW Lawrence has > a full page ad proclaiming itself as "New England's most powerful radio > station". On what basis did WLAW make this claim, considering that even with > 50 kW from Burlington, it is still a Class B (old Class II) station, with > WBZ and WTIC as Class A (Class I-A and I-B)? Now, where I live in Andover, > 680 is much stronger than 1030 given the distances involved and the > radiation patterns, but is/was 680 really "New England's most powerful radio > station"? > > -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. ? 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 ? Newton, MA 02459 617.367.0468 ? Fax:617.507.7856 ? http://www.attorneyross.com From npierce.aq3h@dappermapper.com Wed Jul 31 14:56:28 2019 From: npierce.aq3h@dappermapper.com (Norm Pierce) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:56:28 -0400 Subject: WGBH-TV coverage after August 2 Message-ID: <5D41E45C.9040202@dappermapper.com> After a lifetime of watching Channel 2, I'm wondering if those days are numbered. Looking at the application for their construction permit for the new RF channel 5 assignment [1], it appears that the WGBH engineers have done their best to give the strongest signal that the FCC rules allow them to do on that channel. According to the "Post Auction Baseline" spreadsheet [2], the baseline population served by WGBH-TV, as limited by terrain, is given as 7,633,586. In WGBH's application for a construction permit for the new RF channel 5 assignment, they give a slightly higher number of 7,669,250 because of the change of tower, and the fact that they were able to increase the ERP from 5.3 kW to 6.7 kW without exceeding the geographic coverage area of the largest station within the same market (see ?73.622(f)(5)) -- something they are apparently allowed to do because the proposed coverage contour may extend beyond that of the CCRPN parameters for a station that changes bands (see ?73.3700(b)(1)(iii)). But even with the higher ERP, does anyone think that the population served won't actually be much smaller than it currently is, given the problems with DTV on VHF? Will it really reach an over-the-air audience slightly larger than it currently does on RF channel 19, and comparable to channels 4, 5, and 7, or do the above coverage numbers suffer from gross optimism? Norm Pierce [1] WGBH-TV_reassignment_initial_minor_mod_application_ENG_06-18-2017.pdf https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/dataentry/api/download/attachment/25076f915c78b6bf015cbcb83aa224c3 [2] "Post Auction Baseline" spreadsheet" https://data.fcc.gov/download/incentive-auctions/Transition_Files/Post_Auction_Baseline.xlsx "Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice" (CCRPN) (DA 17-314) https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-17-314A1.pdf