WGBH/WGBX/WBTS [and WFXZ]

[Scott Fybush]

I think the answer is going to be "it's time to buy a new TV."

I just paid $200 at Costco for a nice 43" TCL set with built-in Roku. It
has plenty of HDMI inputs into which I could plug an ATSC3 converter if the
need arises.

Any TV that's still analog-only is at least 13 years old at this point, and
will be 18 years old (at minimum) once ATSC1 signals start to get turned
off. Time to move on!

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 8:10 PM A. Joseph Ross <joe@attorneyross.com> wrote:

> What I'd like to know is what happens with people who still have analog
> TV sets.  There are converters from ATSC1 digital to analog, but I
> suspect there will be no converters from ATSC3 to analog.  Will people
> have to/be able to use two converters?
>
>
> On 1/21/2020 2:50 PM, George Allen wrote:
> > Scott - interesting perspective, which I did not have.  Thanks!
> >
> >
> > At 01:49 PM 1/21/2020, Scott Fybush wrote:
> > WGBH is playing a long game.
> >
> > When ATSC 3 becomes a reality, a few things will happen:
> >
> > 1. The low-VHF signal on 5 will become the ATSC 3 test bed. Anyone
> > using ATSC1 will be watching WGBX for as long as ATSC1 lasts, because
> > it will be the "lighthouse" ATSC1 signal for WGBH, WGBX and WBTS.
> >
> > 2. The ATSC3 signal on RF 5 will come in better than it does now in
> > ATSC1. ATSC3 is just more robust, and can carry more data. No, your
> > current TV can't pick it up, but cheap tuners will be out there in
> > abundance in a year or two.
> >
> > 3. In a few more years, when the move to ATSC3 is complete, WGBH will
> > have lots of options. There will be enough data on the WGBX RF32
> > signal to carry everything - 2.1, 44.1, WBTS, WFXZ - and then some.
> > They could move everything there and use the RF5 signal for new
> > programming and services.  Or they could find that low-V works
> > decently for ATSC3 and leave some services there.
> >
> > They're thinking way ahead.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 1:10 PM George Allen <geo.allen@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > Apologies if it's already been covered here, but I finally figured
> > out what's where with RF Ch. 32 [WGBX].  3 different station call
> > letters on one RF channel - no wonder I'm confused.  1 HD, and 6
> > subchannels with low bitrates for them.
> >
> https://rabbitears.info/market.php?request=print_station&facility_id=72098
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know how much WBTS/NBC-10 pays [ongoing?] WGBH for use of
> > the RF-32 HD slot?
> >
> > What's with the subchannel dimensions of 704/480? How does that
> > become 16:9?  I'm missing something here.
> >
> > The same info for RF-5, where both WGBH and WGBX HD [and WFXZ] live:
> >
> https://rabbitears.info/market.php?request=print_station&facility_id=72099
> >
> >
> > I suppose that's worth the $162 million WGBH got for moving to
> > VHF-low.  Did that net them more than taking VHF-hi would have?
> > https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-17-314A2.pdf [this link
> > has been posted here before]
> > Add another $57 million for WGBY's move to VHF-high [RF-13].
> >
> https://rabbitears.info/market.php?request=print_station&facility_id=72096
> >
> >
> > Hopefully the 4.9x power increase [later this month maybe?] will be
> > enough for my rabbit ears on a Terk HD-TVA.  I can see the d@mn tower
> > from my living room in Swampscott, and can just barely get them with
> > the ears fully extended [visually messy...].  All these decisions by
> > WGBH to cash out spectrum were probably made before cord-cutting
> > became much of a thing.  Yes, I can get low-def 2-1/44-1 on RF-32,
> > but on a decent large-screen 4k TV the difference is obvious.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. · 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 · Newton, MA
> 02459-2004
> 617.367.0468 · Fx: 617.507.7856 · http://www.attorneyross.com
>