Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Antenna T.V. question
Author Message
CenterSquarEd Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 217
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Siena
Location: Albany, NY
Post: #21
RE: Antenna T.V. question
(03-19-2017 11:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't think there's any reason that local station X couldn't purchase rights to channel Z.2 while a different local station Y purchases rights to channel Z.1.

Maybe it just never works out that way, and perhaps that has to do with the broadcasting facilities themselves (antenna towers and the power equipment to pump the physical signals on them) always being owned by the local stations.

The subchannels aren't unique pieces of spectrum. They're part of the same channel and, technologically, couldn't be split apart. The FCC licenses the entire channel. The subchannels would all need to come from the same antenna, because it's all one channel both legally and technologically.

I mean, beyond that, the licensee could resell rights to some of their subchannels. TV stations can and do share towers, or contract out operations.
03-19-2017 02:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,839
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 168
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #22
RE: Antenna T.V. question
(03-19-2017 02:11 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Right now the cheapest reasonable sports package one can put together is:

Buy and install a HDTV antenna (probably outside mount if the towers are more than 10-15 miles).

Add on to your internet a streaming service like Sling, ps vue, etc...source it through AppleTV, Roku, Firestick, etc...

This works for the ACC, PAC12, SEC and B12. Can't get FS1 and FS2 through SLing but you can with PS VUE. Sling/PS VUE only works partially for the B1G and the AAC. IIRC no one can buy the B1G Network as an add on to a streaming service, correct?

The CBS Sports Network is trickier...frankly I don't watch it but it appears you can get a subscription. If your game is on a FOX RSN a chance you could be blacked out if offered locally without a cable TV subscription.

I'm saving about $1200 a year but I gave up a DVR and HD at times. I have Internet and a skinny bundle. My Internet, skinny cable TV and Sling Subscription with WATCHESPN is about $90 a month.

How do you get CBS Sports? In the fall I spent a few hours looking for how to get CBS Sports, but came up empty. I was under the impression that the only subscription you can buy is the CBS All-Access Pass, which (I think) doesn't include college games.
03-23-2017 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,213
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 161
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Antenna T.V. question
(03-19-2017 02:28 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  The subchannels aren't unique pieces of spectrum. They're part of the same channel and, technologically, couldn't be split apart.

Here's the thing you're not considering: virtual channels.

While you are correct that a 6MHz channel of spectrum can support up to six "sub-channels", virtual channels in fact do not have to point to the actual same main channel that they transmit on.


I have an example that proves it: KSTC-TV, in the twin cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSTC-TV

It's virtual channel is 5.2, as it's owned by "Channel 5" (KSTP-TV also in the twin cities, aka the main ABC station in the area). But its actual transmitting channel is 45, which goes back to the stations history of transmitting on UHF channel 45 for many years (and hence being called "45 TV").


Now, like I've already insinuated, this may be the exception rather than the norm.
03-23-2017 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,090
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 93
I Root For: MW
Location: Amarillo
Post: #24
RE: Antenna T.V. question
(03-23-2017 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 02:28 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  The subchannels aren't unique pieces of spectrum. They're part of the same channel and, technologically, couldn't be split apart.

Here's the thing you're not considering: virtual channels.

While you are correct that a 6MHz channel of spectrum can support up to six "sub-channels", virtual channels in fact do not have to point to the actual same main channel that they transmit on.


I have an example that proves it: KSTC-TV, in the twin cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSTC-TV

It's virtual channel is 5.2, as it's owned by "Channel 5" (KSTP-TV also in the twin cities, aka the main ABC station in the area). But its actual transmitting channel is 45, which goes back to the stations history of transmitting on UHF channel 45 for many years (and hence being called "45 TV").


Now, like I've already insinuated, this may be the exception rather than the norm.

Its the norm now. With the VHF channels 2-13 now not available for broadcasting. All TV transmissions are now allocated on UHF 14 - 55. However, the virtual channel can be different than the broadcasting channel. So if a station has allocation of channel 44, they can either choose channel 44.1 as the virtual channel or they can choose another channel like 3.1 or even 24.1 (with the corresponding sub-channels like 3.2, 3.2 or 24.2 or 24.3.)
What happen with the signal went digital was the full powered station had to move from the analog channel of say 7 to a UHF channel. But since they have had channel 7 since the analog days they could put it as a virtual channel so they when a person scans the channels on the TV it would labeled as 7.1 but the actual broadcast channel is 44.
03-23-2017 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,930
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 357
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Antenna T.V. question
(03-23-2017 05:27 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(03-23-2017 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 02:28 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  The subchannels aren't unique pieces of spectrum. They're part of the same channel and, technologically, couldn't be split apart.

Here's the thing you're not considering: virtual channels.

While you are correct that a 6MHz channel of spectrum can support up to six "sub-channels", virtual channels in fact do not have to point to the actual same main channel that they transmit on.


I have an example that proves it: KSTC-TV, in the twin cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSTC-TV

It's virtual channel is 5.2, as it's owned by "Channel 5" (KSTP-TV also in the twin cities, aka the main ABC station in the area). But its actual transmitting channel is 45, which goes back to the stations history of transmitting on UHF channel 45 for many years (and hence being called "45 TV").


Now, like I've already insinuated, this may be the exception rather than the norm.

Its the norm now. With the VHF channels 2-13 now not available for broadcasting. All TV transmissions are now allocated on UHF 14 - 55. However, the virtual channel can be different than the broadcasting channel. So if a station has allocation of channel 44, they can either choose channel 44.1 as the virtual channel or they can choose another channel like 3.1 or even 24.1 (with the corresponding sub-channels like 3.2, 3.2 or 24.2 or 24.3.)
What happen with the signal went digital was the full powered station had to move from the analog channel of say 7 to a UHF channel. But since they have had channel 7 since the analog days they could put it as a virtual channel so they when a person scans the channels on the TV it would labeled as 7.1 but the actual broadcast channel is 44.

2-13 are still used. They just aren't popular because they don't work as well for digital and pick up more interference from household appliances. Antennas aren't always designed now to pick up VHF, which require larger antennas. There are only about 40 or so of the 2000 full power from 2-6. There are about 400 on 7-13 with the rest on UHF 14-51.

The current spectrum auction is an effort to give 38-51 to wireless providers and compact TV and encourage some to go back to VHF. Probably not going to be many to do that. More will just sell out or share slots (as you can do with sub-channels).

Note most of those on 2-6 are in rural and mountainous areas where the longer reach of those frequencies is an advantage. Very few are in cities.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2017 05:34 PM by bullet.)
03-23-2017 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,090
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 93
I Root For: MW
Location: Amarillo
Post: #26
RE: Antenna T.V. question
(03-23-2017 05:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-23-2017 05:27 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(03-23-2017 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 02:28 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  The subchannels aren't unique pieces of spectrum. They're part of the same channel and, technologically, couldn't be split apart.

Here's the thing you're not considering: virtual channels.

While you are correct that a 6MHz channel of spectrum can support up to six "sub-channels", virtual channels in fact do not have to point to the actual same main channel that they transmit on.


I have an example that proves it: KSTC-TV, in the twin cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSTC-TV

It's virtual channel is 5.2, as it's owned by "Channel 5" (KSTP-TV also in the twin cities, aka the main ABC station in the area). But its actual transmitting channel is 45, which goes back to the stations history of transmitting on UHF channel 45 for many years (and hence being called "45 TV").


Now, like I've already insinuated, this may be the exception rather than the norm.

Its the norm now. With the VHF channels 2-13 now not available for broadcasting. All TV transmissions are now allocated on UHF 14 - 55. However, the virtual channel can be different than the broadcasting channel. So if a station has allocation of channel 44, they can either choose channel 44.1 as the virtual channel or they can choose another channel like 3.1 or even 24.1 (with the corresponding sub-channels like 3.2, 3.2 or 24.2 or 24.3.)
What happen with the signal went digital was the full powered station had to move from the analog channel of say 7 to a UHF channel. But since they have had channel 7 since the analog days they could put it as a virtual channel so they when a person scans the channels on the TV it would labeled as 7.1 but the actual broadcast channel is 44.

2-13 are still used. They just aren't popular because they don't work as well for digital and pick up more interference from household appliances. Antennas aren't always designed now to pick up VHF, which require larger antennas. There are only about 40 or so of the 2000 full power from 2-6. There are about 400 on 7-13 with the rest on UHF 14-51.

The current spectrum auction is an effort to give 38-51 to wireless providers and compact TV and encourage some to go back to VHF. Probably not going to be many to do that. More will just sell out or share slots (as you can do with sub-channels).

Note most of those on 2-6 are in rural and mountainous areas where the longer reach of those frequencies is an advantage. Very few are in cities.

Ah..right...had it mixed up. channels 56 - 83 are not allocated for auctioning of the wireless carriers. VHF is difficult for the digital signal so that is why a majority have move to UHF 14 - 55.
03-23-2017 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,213
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 161
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Antenna T.V. question
So to get back to the OP ... regardless which actual transmit channels and stations a particular virtual channel points to ...

I think the reason there aren't more sports being put on OTA sub-channels is that it costs too much and there's too little money in it, said simply.
03-24-2017 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,382
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 118
I Root For: The Game
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #28
RE: Antenna T.V. question
Here in Raleigh the local stations all broadcast 1 or more secondary digital signals. In fact, the local CW station airs American Sports Network on its secondary channel. I can't imagine "Live Well" and "Laff" broadcasts are making much, if any money. A sports channel with reasonable content should be able to compete with them.

I have also seen the local affiliates push regular programming to one of the secondary channels to air special events - like sports.
03-24-2017 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.