Opinion: Virtual Channel Numbers are a Good Thing
By Trip Ericson on Wednesday, April 7 2010, 02:57 - Opinion - Permalink
Every so often, arguments seem to pop up about whether or not we should have so-called "virtual channel numbers." I often find myself as one of the few people who strongly support the existence of virtual channel numbers, while most others argue for their demise. I wish to expand upon why I find them to be more beneficial than using the physical channel number. That way I don't have to have the same argument over and over and over again.
For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, let me try to fill you in on exactly what virtual channel numbers are and what the debate is. If you're watching an over the air broadcast on what appears to be channel 2-1, you're most likely not on the actual channel 2. In New York, you're on channel 33. In Chicago, channel 12. In Baltimore, channel 38. What happens is that when you scan your converter box, each station transmits a "virtual channel number" which your receiver saves and uses to display the channel number you see on your screen. In this way, stations whose channels changed during the transition for whatever reason can still retain their legacy analog channel numbers.
There are pros and cons to this situation. In the interest of being as fair as possible, I'll first present the con(s). There is at least one obvious down side to the use of virtual channel numbers which is somewhat solid. For example, a less knowledgeable viewer who is investigating a new antenna may not know what type of antenna they need. A person living in St. Louis needs only a UHF antenna as none of the local stations are on VHF, but they may opt to purchase an antenna at the store capable of receiving channels 2-51 simply because they don't know that KTVI is actually on channel 43 and not channel 2.
There may be other reasons to oppose virtual channels, but I cannot think of them. The above is the most common reason I hear.
The problem with that assumption is that people are assuming that removing the virtual channel number would change anything. If KTVI was suddenly required to display as 43-1 instead of 2-1 on receivers, who would it help? On cable, the station would remain at its current home, whether that's channel 2 or something else. On satellite, the station would also remain on channel 2. As 90% of viewers get their TV that way, one would expect KTVI to remain "Fox 2" in its on-air branding. So now the station is still called "Fox 2" and any viewer on cable or satellite looking for it still finds it on channel 2 but the over the air viewer now has to remember that what used to be channel 2 is now channel 43. Remember, you need to own an antenna to find the over the air signal; what good does it do to show 43-1 for the benefit of someone who won't see 43-1 until after the antenna has been purchased and installed?
And this does nothing to help with the aforementioned antenna problem. Since the hypothetical cable or satellite viewer trying to use an antenna will still have seen KTVI on channel 2 on their existing subscription service, they will not know that KTVI is channel 43 over the air if they are looking to buy an antenna or do a manual channel number entry to bring in the station rather than doing a scan.
All that would be accomplished by ending virtual channels is a huge increase in consumer anger and confusion. Most people are not doing manual channel entry on their TV; they simply do a scan. Most people are not going to know what antenna to look for anyway, and will not already have OTA functioning before going antenna hunting. Most people would not say virtual channel mapping is even close to the largest problem with digital TV.
In conclusion, I continue to stand by my assertion that virtual channels are a good thing and reduce consumer confusion. I expect my stance to be controversial, but I feel it is correct. Feel free to dispute me in the comments, if you wish. I will attempt to respond, time permitting.
Comments
I appreciate your comments and your support for virtual channels, but I could not disagree more.
In my opinion, virtual channels make no sense at this time. In the beginning of the transition to all digital broadcasting by full power stations, I can concede that there was a need. To help smooth over the uncertainty and apprehension of the transition, and for continuity for veiwers, I could make a case for virtual channels.
For a veiwer looking for a particular program, there was no need to have to remember two different channel numbers. There would have been mass confusion for the public when looking for a particular program that was airing on channel 55 in analog, and airing in digital on channel 27. Yes virtual channel numbers served their purpose. they did help smooth the transition. But enough of this madness...
In my opinion, there should have been a set time, maybe a year from the date of the switch to all digital broadcasting to substitute the new actual channel number for the station. It just makes no sense for a station on channel 14 to still be called channel 61.
Yes I understand branding for television stations. But there have been stations in the past that have petitioned and got authorization to change channels and survived beautifully. If I am looking for "Law and Order", all I would need to do is remember that channel "4" is now channel "40". I, and the vast majority of the veiwing public is smart enough to find the programming we are looking for. Please do not underestimate the intelligence of the masses. When it comes to watching TV, the programming will be found.
Another reason to eliminate virtual channels is situation like this... The first television station in the area in which I live was on channel 6. They are now on channel 21. There is an displacement application for a low power station here that has been filed for the vacated channel 6. They are precluded from calling themselves channel 6, the actual channel they are on, because the former channel 6 continues to brand themselves as 6, even though they are on channel 21. The new channel 5 will have to continue to brand as channel 66, their former UHF channel position. This just makes no sense. We are going to be using channel numbers that have been lopped off and sold or given to law enforcement that don't even exist anymore. Just call it what it is.
I can see just trying to explain to the next generation of kids that are interested in broadcasting that nothing is as it appears. Try to explain that, as in your example, that channel 2 in New York is not really channel 2, but is actually on 33. That it is channel 12 in Chicago and 38 in Baltimore. As my mom always says, "They are going to be as confused as a barking bird"...
One more argument, although it may be a small one, is that there is no cross reference in the FCC database to establish what the actual channel is for the virtuals. If you do not know the call of a station, then looking for channel 3, when the station is on channel 28 is going to do absolutely no good at all. not all stations use the call in their PSIP. They may use something like "MyTX" or the like. If virtual channels are to stay, there should be a cross reference in the FCC database to discern what the actual channel number is for the virtual.
Yes, virtual channel numbers were needed in the beginning. Yes they served a legitimate purpose. But the time to end them has come. The date to end them should have been set for June 12, 2010. That would have given ample time for the stations having to change actual channels enough time to educate their veiwers and make the branding change. The time has come to get to what's real. End virtual channel mapping.
Virtual channel numbers should be eliminated for several additional reasons. First, some converter boxes won't allow you to manually enter the real RF for say, channel 10, when a virtual 10 (whose RF may be channel 51) is in that spot.
Elderly friends of mine in DC cannot pick up WRC channel 4, and telling them to reaim the antenna and rescan for the real channel (RF 48) makes no sense to them. A common response is, "Why are WJLA and WUSA called by their RF numbers (7 and 9), but the others aren't?"
Third, locating stations while travelling, in an unfamiliar area, where you don't have computer access and can't look the locations and RF's up, is more difficult. If the known-as-station-number was the same as the RF, locating it is easier. Otherwise you are painfully doing manual scans, antenna adjustments, and blindly hoping to land on the station. I had this problem in Maine last year, where initally I could only locate WMTW 8, whose RF was still 8, though it took some time to track down 6 and 13 (which turned out to be on RF 44 and RF 38). In the days of analog, before virtual numbers and better signal neccessity, finding stations was easier.
Comparing OTA to satellite and cable station listings is ludicrous. People may freak out when their summer rental has "different channels" then home, but they get used to it, just as they ultimately do when OTA's swap network affiliations.
Another reason to discontinue virtual channels is so the public would be aware of the shrinking TV band, which once went up to channel 83, now goes to 51, and may soon stop at 30.
Thanks,
Mulroon
P.S. Trip, thanks for all the work you are doing; it's always appreciated.
Virtual channels are still needed. As it is now, once you've done a scan and say you want WKRN Ch 2( RF 27 ) you press 2.1 on the remote. Without virtual channels you'd have to enter 27. Now many people are going to be confused as to why "Channel 2" is on Ch 27. Especially when channels like WTVF Ch 5 is still on RF 5. As long as stations are still going to be branded by certain channels then you're going to need virtual channels otherwise you'll have to force WKRN to change to Ch 27. And who is going to pay for that re-branding.
For those that say it's easier and less confusing for people to remember the new real channels all I have to say is what are you smoking? Here would be an example of channels in my area people would have to remember.
Ch2 RF 27
Ch4 RF 10
Ch 6 RF 32
Ch7 RF 43
Ch 11 RF 47
Ch 16 RF 39
Ch17 RF 15
Ch 21 RF 36
Ch 30 RF 21
Ch 50 RF 33
Ch 58 RF 23
Oh yeah so simple for people to remember. Luckily CH 5 and CH 8 are actually on those channels. Then of course within 5 years when the FCC starts moving some of these channels again then it's a brand new channel to remember. Over half the channels listed are above the Ch 30 which the FCC wants to reduce OTA down too. Keeping virtual channels means people aren't constantly having to re-learn channels.
Virtual channels are here to stay. They might seem idiotic but consider this - some cable channels negotiate their position on the dial on major cable systems. Lower channels have more prestige supposedly. So I can understand why broadcasters would like to keep their old channel numbers.
I'm not sure if the analogy holds but here goes anyway...
Virtual channels are a form of indirection much like DNS in networking. We visit this site via the easily-recalled virtual name of ``rabbitears.info'' not its underlying IP address of 74.208.26.151.
Not much to add but "Ditto, Trip!" Switching away from virtual channel numbers would be just too confusing for the majority of viewers.
It's too late to change now. Everyone is used to the virtual channel numbers, even if they were a mistake to begin with, in my opinion.
When the digital stations first came on the air, they should have been ID'd and referred to by their real channel number, not their virtual number. That way, viewers would know that there was an analog channel and a separate digital channel... not like most stations who pretended to indicate that they were changing to digital but never mentioned they had a separate digital station on the air. Many stations didn't even mention their digital channel as a separate entity. They just "flipped the switch" and went from analog to digital. Yeah, right!
During the time when there were two channels for each station, people switching to digital could have become familiar with the new channel numbers. Stations should have ID'd with both channel numbers, such as CBS 5 and 29, or NBC 11 and 12. On June 12 of last year, they could have dropped the analog number and all would have been fine. But it's too late to change now.
Our NBC station, located in San Jose, was 11 analog, is 12 digital and is 3 on most cable systems. For a while they called themselves NBC 3, but that really confused people because the Sacramento NBC station was actually on channel 3. Now they are known as NBC Bay Area... no mention of city or channel number.
Another confusing point here in the San Francisco area is the reuse of analog channel numbers for digital. FOX 2 is on 44, while CW 44 is on 45. MyTV KRON4 is on 38, KCNS 38 is on 39. KTNC 42 is on 14, Univision 14 is on 51 and a new low power station is on 42 with a virtual channel of 1 with 15 sub-channels. Even I get confused sometimes!
At this point we just need to leave things as they are, despite the confusion. It's too late to change to the RF channel numbers.
Larry
SF
I don't have a problem with the concept of virtual channel numbers, but that it doesn't go far enough.
A station should be able to select a new (available) virtual channel number if they so choose or bid on them. I really don't see the need for a station to call itself 69.1, etc. anymore.
We could have something like 1.x for PBS, 2.x for CBS, 4.x for NBC, 5.x for FOX, 7.1x for ABC, etc. in all markets. This has its own set of problems, but by having a ZIP code setting on the TV to make the locals the default would help.
In any event, I don't see re-mapping the channels to their physical RF channels doing much good at this point.
After all, how many typical viewers even know the difference between a VHF and UHF antenna, or Low-VHF vs. Upper-VHF? Removing 2-6 would have made antenna selections simpler, however. That's the main pitfall of virtual channels, not knowing if there is a low-bander in the area, but I don't think this means virtual channels are a failure. I have no desire to punch in 43 for CBS, when I can just input 2 and enter.
As a follow-up comment. I would like to set my own custom virtual channel map. e.g., why can't I map Fox 11.1 to 1.1 and put the EPG in the order I want it?
I've seen custom mapping on some old ~12 button-based CRT TV's but not on any modern TV's.
I agree that virtual identifiers for channels are a good thing, but I think it was a bad idea to make them strictly numeric. The virtual channel identifier should have been made a numeric string with a reasonably large maximum length, that stations could set to whatever branding they want, so long as it doesn't conflict with some other station. Call it the "channel name." TVs and other receivers would use channel names in their channel lists. The actual physical channel number should be visible as an option, for technical purposes, but it should not be the primary identifier in the user interface.
Then people could say things like "FOX CHARLOTTE is on channel 27" and it might actually be widely understandable, instead of "Channel 18 is really on channel 27" which always causes non TV-geeks to scratch their heads when I try to talk to them about it. And most of the time, people wouldn't need to know, or care, what channel number FOX CHARLOTTE is on.
Same for subchannels. Give them names and let the stations decide how closely subchannel names match the primary channel name.
Virtual channels are confusing and not good. If a Tv station is transmitting on UHF 42 and not VHF 2 then the Tv station needs to tell the truth. When the digital switch took place this station is now Digital UHF 42 The new channel brand is 42. This is the simple way to do it.
@Mike M - you can map virtual channel numbers on Windows Media Center. I am not sure about other software. That's exactly what I do. I fill in some of the "holes" in my cable lineup with OTA HD channels that the cable company does not carry, such as WPXN-DT, WNJN-DT and WFUT-DT. That way I can easily scroll through the guide with all of the HD channels grouped in one place.
As for virtual channels in general, do you think that CBS in New York would be happy if it had to change to CBS 33 instead of CBS 2? Not likely. CBS 33 sounds like a low rent affiliate station, not a flagship O&O based in the NYC DMA. What should happen is that the stations themselves should ID with their "real" channel number in fine print in the station ID, such as what CBS did early on (CBS2 HD, DT56).
In the end, all of us DTV techno geeks might care about "lying" about what channel numbers we are really watching, but but all of this really has no interest to consumers who largely don't care about physical channel numbers. And the data used to map channels is miniscule and doesn't degrade audio or video in any way. It's really a non-issue.
Interesting discussion on virtual channels. At first it seemed like such a foreign idea, but now I’ve come to view virtual channels as being particularly helpful, especially during the transition. In this area, we had channel 2 New York temporarily operating on channel 56, and then moving to channel 33 June 2009. At the same time, channel 11 New York was temporarily on channel 33 and moved back to channel 11 digitally in June. Just having to deal with (virtual) “Channel 2” and Channel 11” certainly made things a lot less confusing for viewers.
I feel, however, that say a year after the transition, any TV station should be able to choose to call themselves by any virtual channel they want, avoiding numbers already in use in the market. This would be especially valuable if a station wants to re-brand themselves. Say, for example, WPIX-11 which is now “CW” changes to an all Spanish station, they could now call themselves channel 10. Or maybe they’d want to choose to re-brand with their actually rf channel (33). Virtual channel 11 would simply cease to exist.
I don’t know what the exact rules are for virtual channel use, but there are what seem to be several anomalies in this area.
WWOR-9 New York is on virtual channel 38 and shows up as the primary sub-channel (9.1) in HD.. They are also on WNYW-5’s (channel 44) sub channel is SD, virtual 9.2.
Likewise, WNYW-5’s programming shows up as 5.1 (HD) on WNYW’s transmitter, and 5.2 (SD) on WWOR’s transmitter. This makes perfect sense.
However, in the same market we have WXTV-41 and WFUT-68, that also simulcast each other. But in this case, WXTV is virtual 41.1 on WXTV’s transmitter, and virtual 68.2 on WFUT’s transmitter… they are actually using WFUT’s virtual channel number to identify themselves. And vice versa, WFUT is virtual 68.1 and 41.2. This is even more confusing than using rf channel numbers. Similar numbering is used with WRGB-6 and WCWN-45 in Schenectady.
Added to that, there is a new LD station on rf channel 41 in Paterson, NJ. They identify as virtual 41. So now in the Northern New Jersey area we have the following virtual channels:
41.1 WXTV (Univision)
41.1 WNJJ - LD (Infomercials)
41.2 WFUT (Telefutura)
Here’s something that I’ve only come across on WBOC-16, but I think it works well. WBOC-16 (CBS) operates on rf 21, and it’s virtual channel is 16.1 WBOC also operates as a Fox affiliate on its second sub channel as “Fox-21” virtual channel 21.2. There is no actual Fox TV station in the market.
Then we have my local WRNN-48. This station used to be on analog 62, but signed off the analog completely several years ago when the digital site was built. They use virtual 48, not 62. On air, they never identify any channel… they are simply “RNN”. Also most of their viewership in on cable, which is different on different cable systems. In this area alone, they are variously on cable channels 6, 19 and 22, and on 62 on Direct TV and DISH. As far RNN is concerned, they probably don’t care what virtual channel they use, but it is curious they don’t use their original analog channel 62.
Then we have the confusing case of WCTX-59 in nearby Connecticut. They are on virtual channel 59 (rf 39)… but because they are channel 9 on many cable systems, they use the on-air identifier “My 9”. In this case, being virtual 59 adds to confusion. They should be allowed to be virtual 9.
And finally there’s WNYA-51 Pittsfield, which identifies on air as “My-4 Albany”. The Albany area is actually served by analog WNYA-CA which is still on air on channel 15. WNYA’s analog channel 51 did not really reach Albany very well. WNYA-51 is on virtual 13.
So for views in the Albany area to “My-4 Albany”, who catch the analog signal on channel 15, now must tune to virtual channel 51 to get WNYA on rf 13.
And so it goes. I think virtual channels should evolve to where a station can pick a virtual channel that makes the most sense for them, and not necessarily their old analog channel. As a DXer, I think totally in terms of actual rf channel anyway, and when you come right down to it, remember a station’s actual rf channel is no more difficult or confusing than remembering a station’s cable channel.
Ugh, I can't believe I wrote "The virtual channel identifier should have been made a numeric string with a reasonably large maximum length", in #10.
That should have been "alphanumeric string" instead of "numeric string."
I agree the virtual numbers need to go.
This is the FIRST time in broadcasting, either in TV or Radio that a station is permitted to identify themselves OTHER than the frequency/channel on their license. TV is the only service where this is permitted, and it needs to be phased out for the requirement that the ONLY channel advertised is the actual channel stated on the license, as has been the case since the beginning of broadcasting. I understand why it was needed when the broadcasters were using 2 channels, but this is no longer the case and we need to get back to the assigned number on the license.
Remember, in the past during those cases when broadcasters were permitted to change channels, that new number was the one advertised after the change, NOT the old one.
Since the Tuners are already out there, and many of them have problems tuning a real channel when a virtual channel is also using that number, the only answer is to have everyone go to their real channel. This is especially true for the new broadcasters who are often low power, located in a different direction and have taken over the channel formally used by a full power broadcaster, and cannot be received on many tuners out there because of the conflict.
It is also a big headache in markets where the stations are in different directions and far enough away that all the stations cannot be scanned at once. Of course, some boxes and tuners erase the previous scan, which makes it nearly impossible to have all the channels loaded, unless they are loaded one at a time. Even this does not work on some devices, as there is no single channel option. Try explaining this problem to a non-technical user....
Campers are a big problem with the current system. I go somewhere and discover via the local paper or otherwise there is a channel 2, 6 and 9. When the advertised number was the actual channel used, it was easy to find which way to point my antenna. Simply tune to the desired channel, and rotate the antenna until reception occurs. This does not work unless the station is still using their old number. Of course, you can often guess which way to point by observing other antennas, but if you are in an area with transmitters in different directions, this can be tough. A site like TV fool can help, but many camping sites are too remote for other than cell phone internet.
I realize there is brand to the assigned number, so maybe the return to RF numbering can follow some rules, and the broadcasters given a few years to convert back to their current true RF number.
My Suggestions:
Any NEW broadcaster who has obtained a license to broadcast on a specific channel number should be required to use that RF number. Any existing user of a virtual number that conflicts with the RF number of such a new station should have to change to their REAL RF number.. This helps those low power stations who happen to be on the virtual number of a full power broadcaster.
Any station who changes their call sign should be required to change to their RF number as part of the change process.
Any station that changes ownership should be required to go to their RF number.
Any station who changes networks should have to go to their RF number.
After a few years, anyone still left on their Non RF number should have to move, and this would complete the process. Considering how many stations change ownership, networks and call signs each year, by the time the final deadline arrives, there should be only a small number of stations left to move to their RF channel.
No station shall advertise any number other than their RF or assigned virtual channel number. There are markets like Fort Myers FL where most of the stations advertise numbers like 2,4,and 7. The number advertised is their number on cable, and has never been either their current or past RF number. Think about camping there......
It is time to phase this mess out.
Then we have Mediacom analog cable here in Aledo. FOX18 is on 11. CBS4 is on 5. CH6 is on 7 Ch8 is on 8. Digital cable in HD has other channel locations for locals. Then people dump cable & go with OTA. Confusing.
I'm with Trip on this. (and I very much like re_nelson's analogy to the DNS protocol)
Consider two Los Angeles stations, KCBS and KCAL, and let's assume we DIDN'T have remapping.
Pre-Transition, KCBS was analog channel 2 and KCAL analog channel 9. If you wanted to watch KCBS, you punched in "02" on your remote; to watch KCAL, you punched in "09".
During Transition, KCBS remained analog channel 2 but went to digital channel 60. KCAL remained analog channel 9 but went to digital channel 43. If you wanted to watch KCBS on an analog TV you could still punch in "02" but if you wanted to watch them on a digital set you had to punch "60". For KCAL you stuck with "09" analog but had to punch "43" digital.
After transition, KCAL moved to digital channel 9; KCBS took over KCAL's old digital transmitter on 43. To watch KCBS post-transition, you punched "43"; to watch KCAL, you punched "09".
To review:
Station Analog Pre-transition Post-transition
KCBS 2 60 43
KCAL 9 43 9
Now, let's do the same table assuming we *do* remap:
Station Analog Pre-transition Post-transition
KCBS 2 2 2
KCAL 9 9 9
This is *more* confusing than the first table????
I answer viewer reception calls/emails for a major Nashville station. There have been hundreds of such contacts. NOT ONE has ever expressed confusion over channel remapping.
W9WI,
While the example speaks for the less confusing nature of the virtual channel number while things were changing, now that that part has ended, it is time to go back to actual channel numbers as stated on the Licence.
Technically, channel numbers that are not the actual broadcast channel stated on the license are not permitted to be used in a legal ID, as the ID rule 47.cfr 73.1201(b)(1) states the channel number must be "the station's channel number, as stated on the station's license".
Scanning works best when most/all stations are in the same direction or strong enough to be caught in a scan. It is not fair to the LP's who are being covered up by another station that is using their RF number as a virtual channel.
Another problem is the Virtual number covers up the type of antenna needed. Simply looking at your example, I would assume I only need a VHF antenna, which is not true.
Other posters suggested an alpha ID tag. This would have been a good idea if done before the bulk of the tuners were produced without such features, but it is too late now.
The only way the existing boxes/tuners can be used without confusion and in all markets is to go to actual RF channel numbers for everyone. Those more rural persons are going to be the ones that are more likely to be RF only viewers and are more likely to have more than one direction of reception and more than one channel on the same RF number, both of which are problems with a lot of boxes.
I hope the FCC sees the light on this issue. However maybe they dont care since it is looking more like there may not be any TV channels left after they finish trying to sell more space, after selling off channels 52-69 this time and 70-83 the last time.....