Not here. Just hangs on a blank screen. :confused:

Think you can find a canadian link for the same info for TO stations?

I don't think IC has published that information yet. I susspect we won't see it until sometime in 2009 (a guess on my part).

Actual 7.1, or where they are now 38.2 (7.2)?

WPXJ-DT will be broadcasting at 174-180 MHz which is reffered to as channel 7 in North America. I don't know what channel it will be remapped to but my guess is 51-1.

BTW, that link failed (typical for the FCC).

My guess is it is an issue with the plug-in for Acrobat Reader on you computer.

My guess is it is an issue with the plug-in for Acrobat Reader on you computer.I use FoxIt reader. I tried the link with Firefox and it did open. Another one of many reasons why I almost never use that damn FCC site. :mad:

Anyway, I do see that WPXJ is allocated to 23 and WNGS is allocated to ch. 7. Again, no one over at WPXJ seems to know this.
More amazing that there will be one VHF station left when the dust settles. I find it hard to believe some UHF allocation couldn't be found for WNGS. :confused:
Now, I would immediately think that WNGS would then use WKBW's old xmitter since it solves two issues. It gets rid of WKBWs' old equipment and it gets WNGS a instant VHF facility.

BUT, my main questioin would be, since they (WNGS) are piggybacked on WKBWs' ch. 38 signal, why can't they just remain that way? Why a separate xmitter?? Just blow off VHF 7 and keep things as is?

roger1818; Looking over that database without any legend, as usual (see previous comments about the FCC), what does that last collumn refer to?
That collumn for population makes no sense either. If you look at the numbers for WIVB & WKBW (xmitters 2 miles apart) there is a 300,000 difference in the counts. :confused:

Piggybacking WNGS on 7-2 makes it readily available in Southern Ontario, but moving to ch-7 may make it less easily receivable. I hope it stays on 7-2. Of course I could always use my FTA to receive it.

but moving to ch-7 may make it less easily receivable.Not if they still use WKBWs' facility. ;) It would be going from 38.2 to 7.1.
Actually, the VHF high band has further covereage than UHF for the same ERP.

BTW; here is a perfect example of why I don't like these remapped channel numbers. Everyones tuner has ID'ed WNGS (DTV) as 7.2 whereas it is actually 38.2. If they do move to channel '7' it will then be 7.1.
Someone not in the 'know' will think; what's the big deal? They just changed from 7.2 to 7.1. :confused:

WRONG!

Regarding WNGS being ID'ed as 67.1; I doubt it since 51 is the uppermost channel. They can't be ID'ed as 7.1 either. ;)

Regarding WNGS being ID'ed as 67.1; I doubt it since 51 is the uppermost channel. They can't be ID'ed as 7.1 either. ;)
That's post 2009/02/17 (in the USA) or post 2011/08/31 (in Canada). For now, channels up to 69 are still valid. Sun TV shows up at 66-1 (used to be 66-3) and CITY is 57-1.

There is no technical reason why thet could not remap to 7.1.There would just be 2 stations mapped to 7.1 which is why remapping was stupid in the first place.My tuners accept 2 stations remapping to the same.Just when you push up button would go to the 2nd 7.1.My ttuner has this with 2 66.1,sun toronto on 66 and fox erie on 22 remaps to 66.1 also which only comes in with Tropo activity.

since they (WNGS) are piggybacked on WKBWs' ch. 38 signal, why can't they just remain that way?

There are probably other reasons, but the main one is that 7-2 will only be in SD but by having its own channel, it can broadcast in HD. Likely they will also remain on 7-2 in SD for the extra coverage area.

what does that last collumn refer to?

I am not totally sure, but my best guess is that it is the percent of the stations coverage area that could be sussceptable to interference from another station.

That collumn for population makes no sense either. If you look at the numbers for WIVB & WKBW (xmitters 2 miles apart) there is a 300,000 difference in the counts

If you look at the area of WIVB is 32,947 sq km but WKBW is only 29,175 sq km, so it only makes sence that WIVB reaches a larger population even though they are only 2 miles appart.

Regarding WNGS being ID'ed as 67.1; I doubt it since 51 is the uppermost channel.

Channel 51 is the uppermost physical channel, but there is nothing stopping them from remapping the station to any virtual channel they want.

That's post 2009/02/17 (in the USA)That is when I'm referring to! There is no technical reason why thet could not remap to 7.1.There would just be 2 stations mapped to 7.1 which is why remapping was stupid in the first place.Actually there is and yes it is stupid. Your average tuner won't know what to do with two stations that ID itself with the same virtual channel number. It will probably receive both, but it won't record both.
Example; there are over SIX channel 0's on local cable TV here. Both of my DVR's (one a DVR, the other a AV-HDD) will only record the 1st channel. Thought I can tune through all of them, only the first is reconized. Beside, the FCC would never allow that. but the main one is that 7-2 will only be in SD but by having its own channel, it can broadcast in HD.They don't have any HD material anyway and I would bet they won't in at least the near future, if ever. Channel 51 is the uppermost physical channel, but there is nothing stopping them from remapping the station to any virtual channel they want.The FCC limit of channel 51? Why would that be allowed even though it is only a "virtual' channel.

The FCC limit of channel 51? Why would that be allowed even though it is only a "virtual' channel.

Since virtual channel numbers just tell the TV to rename the channel and don't actually transmit anything on the real channel, they won't cause any interference to whatever will be in the 698-806MHz range (the actual frequencies of channels 52-69).

I realize that, but if the upper limit is 51, why would the FCC allow even a 'virtual' number above that??

Why a separate xmitter?? Just blow off VHF 7 and keep things as is?

Because they can. seriously -- why not have two physical transmitters? Thats 38 MB/s of data (whether it's private data, advertising time, or leased SD channels) they can sell instead of only 19. And running a ch 7 transmitter at 15 kW doesn't cost much -- don't forget, the transmitter is probably only running at 1 or 2 kW to get a 15kW ERP.

QAM is 38 Mb/s, but OTA uses 8VSB which is 19 Mb/s. Both modulation schemes are part of the ATSC standard for Digital Broadcasting. Also the FCC only allows 10KW for VHF and 1 MegaWatt for UHF max. Most dont get licensed for the maximum power.

if the upper limit is 51, why would the FCC allow even a 'virtual' number above that??

My question is why wouldn't they? I explained why they don't want real channels above 51, but I can't think of any reasons to prevent virtual channels above 51. Besides, many stations will want to keep their old channel number from a marketing point of view, so this will allow that.

Hey Roger,
but I can't think of any reasons to prevent virtual channels above 51.
I can think of one, but I don't necessarily agree with it.

We already know there will be lots of consumer confusion in Feb 2009 in the US and likely again in August 2011 in Canada. This has been shown time and again by consumer surveys in the US. So the FCC might want to consider elimination of virtual channels above 51 to avoid increased confusion for Joe-6-Pack.

A lot of consumers will never understand what remapping is, and how it works. The ATSC standard was developed with this in mind. As we know, remapping "occurs behind the scenes" for (most) viewers once a PSIP table is downloaded (via channel scan etc.).

So how do you tell J6P that there are no more channels above 51, and then proceed to tell him that station ABD-DT is on "virtual" channel 54 and station ZYX-DT is on "virtual" channel 62? Simple, either:

You don't tell J6P, or
You eliminate virtual channels above 51.


In terms of market adoption (#1) is feasible, but in terms of less mass confusion (#2) is also advisable IMHO, especially considering the amount that already exists :). In all likelihood the however option (#1), is the outcome, because of branding.

For stations remapping to a virtual channel number that exists outside of the selected range of available channels, is likely an easier way to retain market share than rebranding. In the US there have been three election rounds leading up to final channel allocation. The stations have had their opportunities to change allocations for strategic purposes, and they could always have chosen to rebrand if necessary. A few stations have elected to, and and are being allowed to, stay on VHF low (for example KNAZ-DT, channel 2, Flagstaff, Arizona) so I doubt that remapping to channel 2-6 will be eliminated.

If stations are allowed to sit, or remap to VHF-low allocations, how can the FCC deny those stations that want to remap to above 51?? I can't see them being denied.

Time will tell what the FCC will allow them to do, and perhaps they already have. Regardless Canada will likely follow the American lead on this one.

You are getting way too complicated with the virtual channel numbers. ATSC included the remapping feature at the request of U.S. commercial broadcasters who have put millions of marketing dollars into their analog channel identity over the years. Remember that some broadcasters have been on the same channel since the late 1940s and they want to continue to be known as Channel X, whatever channel number that X happens to be. They often have slogans associated with their channel number, for example WGRZ Buffalo uses "2 on your side". The virtual numbers are only about preserving an existing identity.

WNGS has an analog transmitter and would likely want to use their analog channel number as a virtual channel number for their digital signal. I don't think the ATSC standard allows for a digital station to display two completely different virtual channel numbers, only different decimal points following a main channel number, so '7.x' is their only option.

With respect to "Joe six pack", the physical channel numbers don't matter. He may have heard or read something about changes to the TV band but as long as he can channel surf with the remote and find the program he wants then everything will be OK. J6P is really everybody who doesn't know or care about anything technical. Only the enquiring minds at DHC really care about consistency between physical TV band limits and virtual channel numbering;).

Did I assume something wrong somewhere? I thought that channel number re-mapping was only a temporary item during the digital/analogue overlap, when stations are broadcasting identical programs on 2 separate channels. And when the transition is finished, the re-mapping is going to be dropped. Right now, WKBW wants channel 38 to pass as channel 7.

But what happens after the transition when WNGS takes physical channel 7? Surely, WKBW won't want to retain its branding as channel 7. It would drive some tuners batty. And will WGRZ really want to retain 2 and WIVB retain 4?

Their use of channel 7 has not been approved yet and will create problems with CKCO-dt Kitchener which has been assigned channel 7.The ckco tower was replaced a few years ago and they installed their channel 7 antenna at that time for CKCO-dt.Both current analog signals from wkbw 7 and ckco 13 come in equally fine in northwest Mississauga.So its best for people in the GTA for WNGS to stay as a sub channel.

installed their channel 7 antenna at that time for CKCO-dt.

Wow. Does that mean they will 'flip' the switch Feb 09 when WKBW TV 7 goes off?