# List of stations and what channels they will use in 2009



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Not everyone may know about the switch and what exactly happens. I've been fighting to get some upper UHFs and even though it's moot 3 years from now, that's still a lot of hi def. So back to the antenna aiming 

Here's a list of TV stations, their current digital and analog channels and the channel they have chosen to use for their digital broadcast when analog is turned off.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2649A2.pdf

FYI UHF 52 and above will be gone.


----------



## cheridave (Mar 2, 2004)

The link says we are not "Authorized".

Got any thing better?

Dave


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

corrected link


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

WWMT is going to stay on VHF 2! Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

......he means vhf of course


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Thanks for the save!


----------



## litzdog911 (Oct 18, 2002)

These are still tentative, by the way. Anybody know when the stations have to finalize their decisions?


----------



## Finnstang (Sep 11, 2003)

So far, all mine are staying at there current frequencies. Should make the switch pretty painless for me.


----------



## disco (Mar 27, 2000)

Wow...lot's of changes in the Twin Cities:
KTCA (PBS): 2 -> 34
KTCI (PBS): 17 -> 26
WCCO (CBS): 4 - > 32
KSTP (ABC): 5 -> 35
KMWB (WB): 23 -> 22
KPXM (PAX): 41 -> 40

How will this change things on cable/satellite? I'm guessing the stations will be creating new logos/imaging for themselves, too?? Wow...big changes...


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

disco said:


> Wow...lot's of changes in the Twin Cities:
> KTCA (PBS): 2 -> 34
> KTCI (PBS): 17 -> 26
> WCCO (CBS): 4 - > 32
> ...


no changes to channels for surfing I'm sure. They can remap everything at the back end just like they do now. (ie making uhf channel 64 appear as 6.1 on my tv)

I find it hard to believe that every station would change channel number designations as far as the actual logos etc. That would be a huge and expensive undertaking. Imagine everything from coffee mugs to station trucks that would have to be redone.

But it's a vaild question and i'm not positive of the answer, just of the economics of it all.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

I'm curios about the propogation differences too. For some of the Atlanta current V's going to U, I would imagine that would reduce their coverage, no?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Who decided what stations would stay VHF or go to UHF or was it the stations choice?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

New York City metro area

WCBS (2) not listed
WNBC (4) 28
WNYW (5) 44
WABC (7) not listed
WWOR (9) 38
WPIX (11) 33 => 11 (boneheaded/stupid move to go back to VHF 11)
WNET (13) 61 => 13 (another stupid move back to VHF 13)
WNYE (25) 24
WPXN (30) 31
WFUT (68) 53 => 41

Hopefully it'll take as long for WPIX to switch as it took to get back on the air after 9/11. If they end up broadcasting from the new tower it might be OK, I suppose. And the odds of the new tower being ready by 2009? Zip -- politicos will see to that.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> Who decided what stations would stay VHF or go to UHF or was it the stations choice?


Generally it's the station's choice, though there were a few rounds for priority...

Basically it went something like: Those stations in a UHF frequency now that was going to be removed from use got first choice; then remaining stations could choose their current digital location or their original NTSC licensed frequency.


----------



## DTivoFan (Mar 12, 2005)

newsposter said:


> no changes to channels for surfing I'm sure. They can remap everything at the back end just like they do now. (ie making uhf channel 64 appear as 6.1 on my tv)
> 
> I find it hard to believe that every station would change channel number designations as far as the actual logos etc. That would be a huge and expensive undertaking. Imagine everything from coffee mugs to station trucks that would have to be redone.
> 
> But it's a vaild question and i'm not positive of the answer, just of the economics of it all.


Perhaps they will follow the trend of Canadian TV stations, and remove the channel number from their branding altogether, concentrating more on such factors as the network affiliation, callsign, city, or other brand name.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

dswallow said:


> New York City metro area
> 
> WPIX (11) 33 => 11 (boneheaded/stupid move to go back to VHF 11)
> WNET (13) 61 => 13 (another stupid move back to VHF 13)
> ...


Do you say bonehead because you'll need a new antenna?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

newsposter said:


> Do you say bonehead because you'll need a new antenna?


No, I say that because of enduring WPIX's initial broadcast on that channel which was piss-poor and unreliable. They used it while broadcasting from their own antenna while waiting for the shared antenna on the Empire State Building to be completed. So maybe things will be better with it on a real tower, but I'm not that hopeful.

WNET uses a directional antenna that completely ignores this area so it really won't matter.


----------

