FAUX 6 Responds

[Gregg Lengling]

May 15, 2001 WITI-DT filed the following modification for Community Coverage to place their antenna below their channel 6 antenna on their main tower.  Take a look at the coverage expected. It was granted June 6, 2002.
 http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=30758

An STA (Special Temporary Authority) was granted on Status Date:   04/04/2002  
Expiration Date:   10/04/2002

And another one on Status Date:   05/24/2002  
Expiration Date:   11/25/2002  
 
Unfortunately for these actions there are no copies on line of what was filed for other than it was for channel 33. Anyway unless something changes the STA expires in 2 weeks.


------------------
Gregg R. Lengling
RCA P61310 61" 16x9
HiDTV Pro 2 computer reciever card
glengling@ameritech.net

[ReesR]

Further data:
 http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_sear.htm  

Enter WITI into Call Sign and then scroll down and click submit.

Results in 31 applications which include both analog as well as digital.

[Gregg Lengling]

That is where all the information came from, it is incomplete as far as there is nothing to show the studio tower antenna documents...I can only guess that those 2 STA's relate to it...either way it expires in 2 weeks.

[ReesR]

Gregg:

Do you conclude that the auxiliary contour is for the digital coverage?

Interesting for that contour (if it is the digital one) to reach Sheboygan to the North, Winthrop Harbor to the south and Watertown to the west takes 980 Kilowatts for ch 33.

With an expire date of 11/25/02 I would expect to see something to extend that date by now.

Rees

[P a u l]

If you look in the bottom corner of that picture of the coverage area it says WITI TV not WITI DTV. So this appears to be the coverage area map for the analog signal.

[Tom Snyder]

This is for an auxiliary antenna. If for any reason, the main one fails (or needs to be turned off for maintenance, etc.), this is the one they use to remain on the air.  It's mounted on the main antenna in Estabrook park. ERP is less, and coverage isn't as good, but it allows them to keep broadcasting.

The digital antenna is on a relay tower at that studio, so a map of that signal would show the siugnal originating from a point on Green Bay and Brown Deer roads.

And it's a construction permit. The date is the deadline to finish the construction.  According to Sean, they've been doing work on the main 6 tower. This, may be what they were doing.

[This message has been edited by Tom Snyder (edited 11-12-2002).]

[ReesR]

So let me understand this.

Faux 6 has just spent a Million Bucks (per my conversations with their chief engineer) to re-enforce their tower to not only put up an antenna for their digital feed but also an aux feed?

How long has that tower been up so far?  How many times has 6 been off the air because of their antenna or feedline problems?

For a million bucks I would have placed an aux at a different location.  New York city tv stations certainly have come to that conclusion after 9/11.  I was really shocked when you guys showed me the obvious that all that re-enforcement was for more than just the digital antenna installation.

I'm just shaking my head.  Wouldn't have they been further ahead and spent that Million on putting their digital and aux at a different location?  One of those community towers already up?  No expensive re-enforcement would have been needed on their self supporting tower.

Am I missing something here?

Rees

[Tom Snyder]

After writing several drafts of a response to Mr. Steinmetz (which actaully spawned a thought process that developed into a commentary that I'll be posting later today in a separate thread), I slept on my last one and sent it this morning. Here it is:

As per your wishes, I have passed along your message.  However, after having even courteous inquiries get ignored or responded to with pure spin for up to three years for some of us, I doubt that getting our emails and letters answered is much of a motivation for many of the guys in the group.  As a loosely knit bunch, I can't promise that all future communications from HDTV owners will be "professional." However,  I will certainly attempt to keep my communication on that level.

Now that I have your ear, I would like to once again extend our offer to be of assistance to your engineering staff (an offer that WTMJ, WDJT and WISN have all taken advantage of), to assist in realtime coverage, bandwidth, compression and picture quality feedback tests.

I believe a good first step would be to have someone from your engineering staff provide us with a copy of the predicted coverage map of your digital signal. New people are coming to our site every day, and the question they all have is "why can't I get Digital 6?" If we had a coverage map, that would help us answer that question.  

Thanks!

[mcq]

You are probably going to get back a map of OZ, or is it you may have to be in OZ to get a response.... Hm......


(editorial note) Ok this post doesn not live up to my new code... But I have to inject a little levity now and again.......

[Tom Snyder]

Chuck actually called me this morning, and we spent a good half hour on the phone. I'll post the details in new thread tonight...

[StarvingForHDTV]

Faux 6-DT's signal last night was no longer stretched.  They switched to the 16:9 signal which consists of the 4:3 surrounded by built in black sidebars.  Which seems to be the most popular way for Networks to send out their non-HD signals.  Could they have actually read the email I sent them?  I wouldn't know as there was no response.

Now the part that I could never understand.  Why would 1.1, 4.1, 6.1, and 34.1 put out a 16:9 signal with built in sidebars for 4:3 content in the first place?  Why not just send it out as 4:3 like 1.2,1.3,10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4,10.5,and 22.1?  This makes much more sense to me.  Anyone have a clue?

By the way, it's now clear that Faux 6-DT does not pass along the "Faux Widescreen Enhanced Resolution" signal.  As one of the widescreen shows was shown in 4:3 last night.  No more stretch illusions.  Hopefully they can hurry up and get the real digital signal from the Faux network to me and the other person who gets their digital signal at home.  Maybe that will clear up some of the flickering in their pictures.  I was scared some of the text would jump off my screen last night.  Very annoying and extrememly difficult and fatiguing to watch.  Hopefully all of these issues will be solved by the time they transmit a stronger signal from a main tower.

Starving

[P a u l]

Tom,

I believe the inner circle on the map is the auxiliary antenna and the outer is the primary coverage area for the main antenna, both for the analog signal.

ReesR,

Every tower that is going to have a digital antenna put up on it must have the tower reinforced to hold the weight of the antenna and transmission line running up to the antenna. Our antenna weighs somewhere in the neighborhhod of 4000 lbs. then add the weight of the transmission line which is at least another 1500lbs. thats a lot of weight. It's a very dangerous business for the companies that do the work. Check this link here: http://www.fybush.com/site-021003.html  As far as the community tower issue. Why would we, or any station, want to put up our antenna on someone elses tower when we have our own? I hope you don't think they would just let us put up our antenna and call it a day. We would have to lease the space for the equipment. So reinforcing the tower in the long run will save money.

[ReesR]

Point taken Paul.

But having an aux system tied to the same main tower complex disregards the possibility that what happened to New York would (God forbid) happen to Milwaukee.  If ch 6's tower came down what good is an aux system if it's on the same exact tower as the main?  That was one of my main points I was trying to communicate.

I personally believe the community antenna locations would be excellent backup aux locations.

Rees

[Ty Zucker]

Tom, kudos on your on-going conversations with Chuck Steinmetz and your last email response to him.  His email that said:
 

As long as you host a site - you might want to pass along that going forward I will be happy to communicate with viewers regarding these issues, but many people seem to take this so passionately that they write/call in a very non-professional manner. I understand the passion, but I will not put my employees in a position where they have to deal w/ viewers who write/speak in such a manner - those emails/messages will go unanswered.

sounds a little bit like an excuse to me.

In other words, if Fox6 didn't answer viewers emails with spin and technical truths (ie, "technically we met the FCC requirement"), they wouldn't get emails quite so nasty.  Your email response to him was well-worded.

What was his response to your comment about the spin they've been speaking for the past few years?

[Tom Snyder]

He actually began the discussion with a promise to enter a "no-spin zone." I've been promising to post the details.. and I will. But we talked for a very long time, and discussed a bunch of issues. I'm writing the post in my word processor and will post it when it's done. I apologize for the delay, but I need to get it right.