WITI Violating FCC Mandate, Yes or No?

[Joseph S]

ACCORDING TO THE LONGELY-RICE COMPUTATIONS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE FCC, AND ACCORDING TO ALL CURRENT FCC RULE AND REGULATIONS IN PLACE, WITI OR ANY STATION REQUIRED TO BE ON THE AIR ON MAY 1, 2002 ONLY NEEDS TO COVER CITY OF LICENSE ACCORDING TO LONGELY-RICE WITH AN OUTSIDE ANTENNA

Who here believes they're still in violation and what can be done about it?

I vote yes. Unable to receive with both outdoor roof or indoor in Milwaukee.

[borghe]

I have already discussed this with one of WITI's head engineers.. Unfortunately to be in compliance with the FCC mandate, WITI-DT only needs to be receivable with an outdoor antenna which is no less than 30' from the ground and aimed directly at the tower. If you were to do this, WITI would come in clear as a bird. Heck, if I just through a rotor on my rooftop I could get them in without batting an eye..

So no, according to the license they are not out of compliance. Sorry. :mad:

[John L]

This is ridiculous!!!   I'm not going to vote.

Eventually WITI-DT will be increasing their power, and I expect they will very soon.  They have been shutting down their analog ch. 6 transmitter between 1-5 am at various times so that they can work on the Effiel tower to install their DTV antenna there.

I agree with Borghe, the fact that even if they have a peanut coverage right now, they are on the air and have met the May 1, 2002 mandate.

You know they will have to increase their coverage sooner or later because they will have to eventually shut down their analog system just like everyone else, and eventually they will still want viewers with the DTV signal so they will have to do something about it.

-John L.

[Joseph S]

If you were to do this, WITI would come in clear as a bird.

Not here, I get blips only. Everything else is receivable ableit not perfect at every direction as would be expected.

[borghe]

where is here? and is your antenna outdoors and at least 30' from the ground (approximately the top of a full third story)?

you can talk to their senior engineer.. there is an email address on their website... He will actually generally respond to questions such as this.

According to FCC mandate they are required to provide coverage to their full class A coverage area under the stipulations I mentioned. If you are in their class A coverage area and your antenna is at least 30' from the ground, they will work with you to get a signal. Send them an email.

If not, you have absolutely no legs to stand on.

[foxeng]

Originally posted by borghe
According to FCC mandate they are required to provide coverage to their full class A coverage area under the stipulations I mentioned. If you are in their class A coverage area and your antenna is at least 30' from the ground, they will work with you to get a signal. Send them an email.

If not, you have absolutely no legs to stand on.

The current low power ruling only stipulates city of license. It has nothing to do with the class A coverage area. But the rest of your remarks are correct.

[foxeng]

Just to make a clarification on the class A. The FCC is referring to what would be a digital class A signal of a minumum of 48dBu over the city of license (which is meant to be the center of downtown or main post office in that city. It is gotcha that has haunted AMs for years) not the class A area of the analog signal. There could be some confusion due to the terminalogy the FCC uses. As long as that 48dBu is maintained at 30 ft about the ground within that radius with a 0 db gain antenna in free space (another gotcha that can't be duplicated in real life), a station is meeting the low power requirements as set forth by the FCC in its First DTV Review, November, 2001.

It really has no baring on population centers or actual city limits. That is why you have AM directional stations with such strange patterns and transmitter locations just to get a signal over the population and to maintain that class A signal over the post office of the city of license.

[borghe]

understood..

I will again say though that in talking with the senior engineer two years ago, he assured me that where I am at (69th & Bluemound) I should have no problems getting there signal, provided I have an outdoor antenna pointed at their station 30' off the ground. I have no reason to disbelieve this as I can get a 51 signal with an RS DBT inside on the ground floor (albeit in a sweet spot, not anywhere else).

obviously ymmv and I'm not saying everyone can or will get it, but this thread is basically asking to start something with really nothing to back it up.

yes WITI has put almost all of us without TWC in a bad position, but baseless threats aren't going to change that. The only thing that will is time and getting more and more viewers who don't feel like being forced to TWC and want to get their free TV that they are entitled to.

And before some yahoo comes in here and talks about $500 boxes and whatnot, remember that almost half of all big screen HDTVs sold today have tuners built into them (is mandated to be half by the end of this year). So there are plenty of people out there who are or will be able to just stick a set of rabbit ears on to their new HDTVs to get an HD signal from the locals. Right now WITI is basically forcing these people, who can get HDTV for a total investment of $15, to spend $20/month just to get Fox6.

[Gregg Lengling]

I've looked at the engineering documentation that WITI provided for their low power setup and to tell you the truth I can't replicate their coverage maps using my software (a very expensive engineering package that I've used for all my propagation studies for my industry).  I think they fudged on their submittal..however I'm hoping this is all moot very soon when they move to the main tower.

You also have to remember with such a low center of radiation from their current site and a directional array pointing SW, the only persons that have a good chance of receiving their signal will be in that SW line and/or within a short distance of their station.  Because I'm directly (almost) North of their station, only a few miles, and off the back of their antenna..even with a 50' high antenna I have no signal.  But I also have to configure into the equation that WISN is adjacent channel to them and by running 500KW this causes the AGC on my receiver to ramp back because it sees all the adjacent channel energy and makes it impossible to even see a weak signal.

Come WITI lets get this project done...you've spent tons on refurbing the tower for DTV and the move of your standby analog antenna to higher on the tower.  Also I'm aware you've had the feedline (coaxial cable, rigid line) for months....let's do it.

[foxeng]

Originally posted by Gregg Lengling
I've looked at the engineering documentation that WITI provided for their low power setup and to tell you the truth I can't replicate their coverage maps using my software (a very expensive engineering package that I've used for all my propagation studies for my industry).  I think they fudged on their submittal..however I'm hoping this is all moot very soon when they move to the main tower.

Unless your software package specificly has the Longley-Rice computations for digital, then it will not match up. (I know I have tried myself).

The same program was used on all the low power FOX stations and the predicted contours from my station match almost to the mile of coverage.

It is a proven fact that Longley-Rice has MAJOR problems when water and mountains and in the coverage area. Longley-Rice let two stations over water within 120 miles of each other on the same channel and that went to court to get it straightened out. A station that a friend of mine is the transmitter supervisor at was put on the same channel as a NTSC 150 miles away. Normally that isn't problem, but his antenna is over 4000 ft above the NTSC station and at quarter power, his DTV was wiping out the NTSC station. Now that was a mess!

I say this to make the point that even though there may be major holes in the coverage, according to the program the FCC requires stations to use, in the FCC eyes, it does cover what it says, even though in reality it isn't anywhere near.

But I must agree with you that the real problem may not be lack of signal, but too much of a difference in signal level between WITI and the station on the next channel and the receiver is seeing the other stations signal and cutting back on gain to keep from overloading the receiver. If that is the case, then the signal is there, you can't see it because the other station is overpowering it and in reality, that is not WITI's fault, but your receivers fault even though it isn't anyone's fault since both stations are operating within their authorized limits and the receiver is doing what it is designed to do in that situation.

[Gregg Lengling]

Sorry but I did do Longley-Rice computations and they come up about 20 dB lower on the plot than the engineering submitted.

[foxeng]

Originally posted by Gregg Lengling
Sorry but I did do Longley-Rice computations and they come up about 20 dB lower on the plot than the engineering submitted.

I resign. I know nothing.:bang: