Is WLUC/Marquette stronger now?

[MetalUpYourAss1973]

So, at my location in Negaunee Twp I have NEVER been able to pick up TV6 on ANY of the RFs they've had since the original RF6 went dark with the conversion to DTV. The last time I checked was last summer and nothing. A few days ago I did a band scan on a TV and it picked up BOTH the RF35 with a stable 50-60% signal and RF14 translator with more sporadic 40% (feed quality blips and blurps now and then.) After a few days it seems that both signals are in the mid 50s% and fully watchable.

Did something get upgraded with these transmitters to make this happen? Like I say, I don't remember EVER being able to receive TV6 over-the-air since the analog RF6 days.

[MWmetalhead]

I'm not seeing anything recent in the FCC database. The license to cover for RF 35's upgrade to 100 kW directional was issued in February 2023. For the RF 14 translator, it's been several years since any filings occurred.

WBUP-TV was approved for a big upgrade from 9kW to 25kW on RF-10 last November (I am unsure if the station is broadcasting at boosted power already), so perhaps Gray got around to doing some transmitter plant / transmitter line / antenna maintenance?

The 25 kW signal footprint from WBUP covers quite a bit more real estate than WLUC's RF 35, and then when one considers the fact WBUP's ABC programming is simulcast on not just one but two (!!!) additional full power signals, perhaps WLUC is getting a little nervous?

Speaking of WBUP, the video player on their myupnow.com website works like complete caca. They need to fix that, if they haven't already done so.

[MetalUpYourAss1973]

I feel like WLUC has failed miserably on their OTA coverage ever since the analog 6 went dark. I used to be able to watch 6 with a piece of wire in my basement as an antenna, but their RF35 has been all but impossible for me here. I see you used the word DIRECTIONAL in their 2023 upgrade. Was it not directional before that, and which direction is favored for that now? I mean maybe that's the difference on why it's working today for me.

[MWmetalhead]

WLUC's DT signal has always been directional, with peak power sent in the general direction of Marquette, Negaunee and Ishpeming and weakest power sent in the general direction of Iron Mountain. Escanaba also receives far less than peak ERP.

WLUC's DT signal originally was licensed for maximum ERP of 63 kW, then 83 kW, and now it is 100 kW.

WLUC's tower appears to be in a stupid location to boot. HAAT is about 160 feet less than actual height above ground level.

My guess is WLUC ownership didn't want to have to a higher power bill for a more powerful transmitter, and WLUC also likely found the notion of OTA viewers switching to cable & sat services alluring (since WLUC would be able to receive greater retransmission consent revenue, which is generally calculated on a per-subscriber basis).

A lot of the TV stations in the western & central UP have really goofy directional radiation patterns, for whatever reason. WNMU-TV (on RF channel 8 ) is the one exception to the rule, broadcasting at 15.5 kW omni from a tower that is more than 1,000 feet in height.

[MetalUpYourAss1973]

RF8 comes in great at my location with nearly full signal strength, and if I remember right they boom in from the same general area that RF35 does. It is so dumb (or lazy) that WLUC can't/won't figure out how sporadic their reception is in actual population areas. Good on them for putting RF14 in the city, but that still doesn't help us Negaunee folks.

RF10 even comes in good enough here to get by with in their reduced power state.

RF32 from Esky/Trenary never has any issues either.

ONLY WLUC has issues, and I think that would be so scummy if they actually did it this way to entice more sat/cable subs. I have considered that rabbit hole in the past too.

[MWmetalhead]

ONLY WLUC has issues, and I think that would be so scummy if they actually did it this way to entice more sat/cable subs. I have considered that rabbit hole in the past too

Very interesting that WJMN is a more reliable signal in your locale than WLUC, as Negaunee is near the edge of the city grade contour for WJMN but solidly within the city grade contour for WLUC.

How is WZMQ's signal where you live? That one should be very easy to pull in; their TX site is located on the eastern outskirts of Ishpeming.

[MetalUpYourAss1973]

ONLY WLUC has issues, and I think that would be so scummy if they actually did it this way to entice more sat/cable subs. I have considered that rabbit hole in the past too

Very interesting that WJMN is a more reliable signal in your locale than WLUC, as Negaunee is near the edge of the city grade contour for WJMN but solidly within the city grade contour for WLUC.

How is WZMQ's signal where you live? That one should be very easy to pull in; their TX site is located on the eastern outskirts of Ishpeming.

So this is really odd now. Tonight my WLUC signal is back to around 30-35% on both RF35 and RF14, and variable where if either one drops below 30 it starts pixelating and blipping. That seems more in line with what usually happens, only it normally can't reach the threshold to actually get sound o video.

RF19 is 90-95%. WJMN-RF32 is about 75%. WBUP-RF10 is 32%. WNMU-RF8 is 83%. Seems like that Malton Rd tower array in Ishpeming would make good sense for RF35 since RF19 and Q107 get out GREAT from that tower. They could even make it omni if they wanted.

[ftballfan]

WLUC's DT signal has always been directional, with peak power sent in the general direction of Marquette, Negaunee and Ishpeming and weakest power sent in the general direction of Iron Mountain. Escanaba also receives far less than peak ERP.

WLUC's DT signal originally was licensed for maximum ERP of 63 kW, then 83 kW, and now it is 100 kW.

WLUC's tower appears to be in a stupid location to boot. HAAT is about 160 feet less than actual height above ground level.

My guess is WLUC ownership didn't want to have to a higher power bill for a more powerful transmitter, and WLUC also likely found the notion of OTA viewers switching to cable & sat services alluring (since WLUC would be able to receive greater retransmission consent revenue, which is generally calculated on a per-subscriber basis).

A lot of the TV stations in the western & central UP have really goofy directional radiation patterns, for whatever reason. WNMU-TV (on RF channel 8 ) is the one exception to the rule, broadcasting at 15.5 kW omni from a tower that is more than 1,000 feet in height.

Even moving their digital signal to RF 6 would've been better than what they have now IMHO

[MWmetalhead]

RF 6 is a mess for DTV purposes if any FMs broadcast at 88 MHz or even 89 MHz in some instances.

The textbook example is ABC 6 in Philadelphia.

[MetalUpYourAss1973]

Sounds like this NextGen thing needs to happen sooner than later. I remember TV channels used to go up to channel 83 and now it's only 36. I don't even know if anybody uses the VHF-Low band anymore. More stations are signing on with new networks but there's less than half of the available spectrum for said channels. It's a good thing you can fit a bunch of stations on a single channel, but it's useless when the best signals are received in the middle of BFE while the population centers suffer.

For what it's worth, the only thing I ever had to do with analog 6 was to insert an FM trap at the antenna connection before the preamp. Perfect and flawless all day and night.

[statmanmi]

... their RF35 has been all but impossible for me here. ...

...
For what it's worth, the only thing I ever had to do with analog 6 was to insert an FM trap at the antenna connection before the preamp. Perfect and flawless all day and night.

Hey MetalUP,

Any chance a LTE/5G trap might be worth trying? Perhaps you have a nearby cell tower, that is spewing all sorts of wattage up in the RF39 through RF41 bands. If that frequency range has some high power activity nearby, it can desensitize TV tuners from receiving the broadcasts in the 30s, mostly RF36, RF35, etc. Especially if there's a pre-amp or other amplification occurring.

Note that the cheapest filters usually aren't very well tuned, and thus could actually degrade RF35. I'd recommend Channel Master's, based upon my personal use and reviews I've seen online where those with signal meters and way more knowledge than me have done tests. Shopping link for free shipping and no personal affiliation other than being their past customer: https://www.channelmaster.com/products/ ... er-cm-3201 .

If you were having issues with any VHF TV signals, I'd instead recommend their "all-in-one" filter that they launched last year: https://www.channelmaster.com/collectio ... na-signals . But you likely don't need to spend $39 on it; the $19 for the LTE/5G one above probably is worth getting as an experiment.

Cheers! ~~ Statmanmi

[MetalUpYourAss1973]

... their RF35 has been all but impossible for me here. ...

...
For what it's worth, the only thing I ever had to do with analog 6 was to insert an FM trap at the antenna connection before the preamp. Perfect and flawless all day and night.

Hey MetalUP,

Any chance a LTE/5G trap might be worth trying? Perhaps you have a nearby cell tower, that is spewing all sorts of wattage up in the RF39 through RF41 bands. If that frequency range has some high power activity nearby, it can desensitize TV tuners from receiving the broadcasts in the 30s, mostly RF36, RF35, etc. Especially if there's a pre-amp or other amplification occurring.

Note that the cheapest filters usually aren't very well tuned, and thus could actually degrade RF35. I'd recommend Channel Master's, based upon my personal use and reviews I've seen online where those with signal meters and way more knowledge than me have done tests. Shopping link for free shipping and no personal affiliation other than being their past customer: https://www.channelmaster.com/products/ ... er-cm-3201 .

If you were having issues with any VHF TV signals, I'd instead recommend their "all-in-one" filter that they launched last year: https://www.channelmaster.com/collectio ... na-signals . But you likely don't need to spend $39 on it; the $19 for the LTE/5G one above probably is worth getting as an experiment.

Cheers! ~~ Statmanmi

I never considered that before, but it's funny you mention RF39-41 because when I was manually tuning stations to see what my strengths were I did notice high signals on those exact RFs, sometimes upwards of 80% strength, but they were very much variable strengths. I do use a preamp on the roof with the inline power supply in the house.

To my knowledge, Verizon and T-Mobile share a cell tower right by Tractor Supply in Negaunee Twp, while ATT has theirs by Midway Industrial Park, but I'm in a near-dead zone here for ATT. They must have taken those lower frequencies rather swiftly, because it doesn't seem like that long ago that WJMN was broadcasting on RF48 if I remember right.

Your idea may be worth a try, but I know I don't have any issues with RF32. I'm not sure how far down the channel spectrum would be affected by cellular noise either.

[statmanmi]

...

Your idea may be worth a try, but I know I don't have any issues with RF32. I'm not sure how far down the channel spectrum would be affected by cellular noise either.

Hey MetalUP,

For RF35 reception, if I were you, I'd buy the Channel Master LTE/5G filter that I linked above for the $19, and insert it between the antenna and preamp. Just like you described having done in the past with a FM Trap. It might stabilize the TV signal better than you're experiencing.

Likely your RF32 signal isn't impacted, but RF35 very much could be.

T-Mobile bought most of the RF39-41 bandwidth in Michigan during the FCC incentive auction. They did move fast to implement, to the point that they paid some TV stations to move early or go dark for awhile.

The CellMapper site is a bit clunky to use, but ends up showing the T-Mobile tower locations fairly well: https://www.cellmapper.net/map?MCC=310& ... nits=false

Cheers! ~~ Statmanmi