Talk:WGBH-TV

Discrepencies

There are some odd discreps in this article, I'd like them corrected, but as a long-time employee of WGBH am I disallowed from editing the article on grounds of conflict of interests? e.g. - Two differing dates are given for the fire at the Mass Ave studios... Either the story is more complex than I know, or someone's mistaken. Emyth 21:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone can edit, the relation you may have to the subject doesn't matter. Everyone is encouraged and welcomed to help out. :-) - Evil saltine 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Channel 2-Mobile

This historic concept needs its own webpage and needs to be revived.

text stolen from another website describing 2-mobile; more information needed, : The 2-Toy’s thematic parent was a ten-foot-high, plywood “2-MOBILE” bolted to an old Volkswagen chassis. The 2-Mobile ran fitfully, was unstable in the slightest cross-wind, and was a challenge to drive, but we did so anyway, and with great enthusiasm. The idea was to drive it through suburban communities “from the Cape to Route 128 and back to our studios by August 31st” while a large, lighted in-studio map charted progress during “the countdown to the end of our fiscal year.” In each community, volunteers organized grip-and-grin photos with local poohbahs while supporters of our children’s programs lined up, we hoped, with contributions envelopes while remote crews taped the fun. While all this was going on, we offered 2-Toys on-air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.107.91 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

more text stolen from alumni website with picture of the 2-mobile;

 http://wgbhalumni.org/2012/06/05/do-you-remember-the-2-mobile/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.107.91 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC) 

Sign-on/sign-off section

Lots of information, yet the format is messy (reads more like a memo than an article). Tried to clean it up, but I am not an expert concerning the information in that section. Also, I am not sure if such material should be included. Any thoughts? Pentawing 18:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it has any encyclopedic value. 121a0012 03:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

If it stays, it should be at or near the end of the article, since it's misc. information when compared to the rest. - Evil saltine 10:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I did some more cleanup and moved the section towards the end, yet I am still keeping the "cleanup" notation on the article. I am going to wait for two weeks, and if no one argues for keeping this section, I'm getting rid of it. Pentawing 03:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has argued for keeping the section, I have commented it out. If someone does wish to include this material, simply uncomment the passage (though after reading through it, I don't believe it has any value). Pentawing 04:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Splitting article

IMHO, this article needs to be split into separate WGBH (FM) and WGBH-TV/WGBX-TV articles. While the history may be shared, very little about the programming is. Right now the article title is correct for the FM, but the contents are mostly about TV. 121a0012 02:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

If there is a lot more information on WGBH-FM, I would disagree about splitting the article. Instead, one could rewrite the introduction to better reflect the fact that the article is on both the TV and radio stations. Also, one could write separate sections devoted to each station (see the article KQED for an example). Pentawing 03:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree, without a doubt --wpktsfs 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WGBH's music theme

The seven-second theme for WGBH is still the same, why do you still keep the old WGBH music theme for synthesizer and who composed the theme for the ID?

We aren't them, how do we know? --Wcquidditch | Talk 18:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably (W)GBH loves how they made their logo music. Chiagozie Elobuike (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"The sign-off was similar to the sign-off, but in reverse."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 11:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a typo. --Wcquidditch | Talk 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it was referring to the direction in which the outline-2 logo moved at the very end of the clip. The copy expaining this in nauseating detail was stuffed into a comment, but I've exhumed it here. Cause I'm a fan, too.
--Baylink (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems

The intro really needs some attention. It says

WGBH is an established public television station for Boston, Massachusetts, which is a member of public radio networks (PBS, and NPR and PRI).

Does anyone else see a problem here? That an "established ... television" station is a member of "radio networks"? And that PBS is not a radio network and that PRI is not an organization with "member" stations? And that there is no mention of the production and distribution that WGBH does on its own of both television and radio programming? I started to reword this, but dropped it as it will take longer than I have to deal with it right now. (OK, so the next sentence does mention the TV productions, but still, the first sentence just seems inadequate in so many ways.) older≠wiser 01:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed Trivia section

Trivia section was removed. The only item it contained sounded like a plug. The presumed plug was added by a user who had previously vandalized the page.

Taken Down by WGBH Management

A user on Music Lane (can be found on Google) complained about Wikipedia saying the article on WGBH-TV carries the Charlie the Red Dog early in the morning at 7 A.M, saying some PBS viewers were not supporting either WGBH or PBS and let's take out the word, "disco". —the preceding unsigned comment is by 65.54.97.193 (talk • contribs) 18:46, December 26 2005 (UTC)

An article about WGBY?

I know WGBY gets a little mention in this article, but I feel as though it should get its own article. What do you think? JB82 { !@? } 03:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to agree. 'GBY has its own web presence and seems to be run basically separately from the Boston station -- it's hard to even find a WGBH reference on their website. (I'd almost be inclined to break out WCAI/WNAN/WZAI into their own article too, but I'm not too sure about that.) Haikupoet 05:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Address of original studio

I edited the article to state that the original studios were at 84 Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge. The city was not given originally in this context, and the article states that the station is in Boston; there exists an 84 Mass. Ave. in Boston which is not the former location of the studios.

Local programming?

This article is about WGBH-TV/FM in Boston too. This article has more national content and programming and its missing its great local programming which is totally missing. Programs such as Greater Boston, La Plaza, Basic Black and its Eye on Education. None of the mentioned programs are not even on the article. I might have a slant to this, but I highly respect the local programming from WGBH that can't be viewed outside the fifth largest televison market in the country and these programs cannot be found nationally on PBS.... Steven312 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

One or more people using IP addresses from WGBH and WGBH Educational Foundation have repeatedly been censoring sourced information, for an unknown reason, from the Suze Rotolo article. I just thought this should be known. Flipsod2 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This, of course, isn't the place to make that known (unless you're trying to vent a grudge or some such). Take it up with Wikipedia's administrators.

Atlant 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for casting aspersions by suggesting I have a grudge. It is of note that someone closely associated with WGBH is actively censoring information. Flipsod2 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your response to me seems to continue to suggest that you do. As I said (and said in good faith), if you have an issue, take it up with the Wiki admins; they can act on it.

Atlant 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Times are changing at WGBH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.168.89 (talk • contribs) 16:24, February 2, 2006

Uh... I'm just wondering, what does that have to do with censorship by WGBH people? For that matter, does that have anything to do with the WGBH article at all? That just seems... random, I'll say. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, that is a WGBH IP. That's a link... but everything else doesn't pan out. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Viacom digital television facility"

Could someone update that? I have no reason to believe Viacom owns the tower that WGBH-TV/WGBX-TV operates from anymore, since after the recent split all of its broadcast operations (like this facility) are part of CBS Corporation, as this facility has traditionally been owned by WBZ-TV. So, could someone update the Viacom references accordingly? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well, but if so, they have yet to file an ownership change for the antenna structure registration with the FCC.

OK... after no luck at the FCC, I figured out what happened by looking at the SEC documents. Viacom did not spin off CBS; Viacom spun off "New Viacom" and then changed its name to CBS. Theoretically, they are supposed to file "pro forma" transfers for all of the "Viacom, Inc." assets (including the 350 Cedar Street tower and WBZ-TV itself) but haven't (yet) done so. So yes, that should be updated. 121a0012 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A glaring omission ?

Most articles that are initialisms state what the initials stand for. Perhaps I am mistaken in that WGBH isn't an initialism, or perhaps the answer is already mentioned and I have missed it; however one of the first things and initialism article should state, surely, is what the initials stand for - no ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.103.205.80 (talk • contribs) .

Well, okay. It's in the info box and was mentioned under callsign history, but I took a look at what was written there and it's not as clear as it could be. The answer is Great Blue Hill (from the original location of the transmitter in Milton). Hope that fixes the problem. Haikupoet 06:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is, in even my opinion, an exceedingly nit picky point.  :-) WGBH doesn't actually *abbreviate* anything, and therefore, isn't an initialism in the strictest sense of the words, in much the same way that most things people call acronyms aren't, because they aren't *words* (yet). (And thanks for getting it right.) It is often the case that ownerships pick callsigns because the "inspire" thoughts of specific local or station features or branding, but I'm not sure I think that's strong enough to qualify callsigns as initialisms. That said, I do agree the explanation should be in there, as it is, as long as it's characterized properly.
--Baylink (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article

2 oppose, 3 agree.

Oppose. First off, I'm of the opinion that unless the radio and TV operations of a specific callsign have a distinctly different identity, or unless the article has reached a truly unwieldy length (which I can't say I think this article has), there really isn't much point in separating them, especially in situations such as this where the radio and TV operations are tightly intertwined. Now WGBY and Cape and Islands NPR are somewhat different cases, if only because they're in different media markets from the Boston stations, even though they are part of the WGBH umbrella organization. That said, however, WGBH-FM and WGBH-TV do cross-promote each other, and the member's magazine 'GBH gives programming information for both the radio and television sides. I just don't see a split as being productive, and in fact might create some unnecessary redundancy. Haikupoet 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose... But if a split is made, it should be done in a manner that correctly reflects the actual structure of the institution, no? WGBH Educational Foundation is the parent entity. WGBH Radio Boston is the FM entity that spawned the CAI/NAN stations. WGBH TV2 is the television entity. WGBY is related... And so on... There are also the Online departments which are the institutions "third platform". Emyth 16:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for the stated reasons. Atlant 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The argument can also be that KYW-TV and KYW 1060 cross promote, WCBS-TV WCBS 880 cross promote, but the reason those are separated, because they are different. WGBH-TV does not simulcast their programming on the radio, therefore the FM should not be on the main page. WPVI can get away because they simulcast their programming 24/7 on their FM station, therefore that can be in the same article.

The article, may I be direct, looks really messy. If the people really want the FM side of GBH in the article, why the hell is there not an infobox on the radio station? GBY should not be in this article because its not in the same market. Springfield/Hartford/Albany can't get GBH and Boston/Manchester can't get GBY, therefore should not be in the article. 'CAI/NAN should not be in the article because the logic that the stations doesn't simulcast GBH-TV, therefore have its separate article.

The cross reference is bullshit, and should be taken into consideration. If the logic is that if the radio stations aired Greater Boston or NOVA, then it should be in the main article (like WPVI reference earlier). They don't air the same programming, its similar, but not exact, therefore it should be separated.

If people believe the "its the same thing" shit, I'll be extremely happy to create a WGBH (FM) article. The people are idiots editing this article for the last 2 years, I hate coming to this article, when I click on it. Steven312 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree because WGBH-TV, WGBX, and WGBH-FM are three different entities. Also, Steven312 screwed up, saying WPVI had a sister FM station. It is the channel 6 sound carrier (in a nutshell). 75.120.52.154 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree because I think the article is becoming quite long. And because they are 3 different, independent programming entities (WGBH-FM is on a totally different medium, so that should be split off, at least). 207.119.203.11 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that WGBH-FM & WCAI at least should be split off of this article. This article is getting quite long. 72.161.135.38 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WGBH outline

The pictures of the WGBH TV jingle are excellent. It's much better to have a visual picture of what's being talked about than having to imagine it. However, I found a still of the outline being formed on YouTube.com. I don't have the slightest idea how to incorporate it in with the other pictures and I would probably wind up screwing it up or getting in trouble if I tried to do it on my own. If anybody can pull it off (legally), I believe it would be an excellent representation of what the outline looks like at the beginning. I know finding pictures of the old WGBH logo/jingle is hard. Just a suggestion. Thanks!

Regarding the CANCOM satellite linkup.

Okay, this is User:DanCBJMS, however, I haven't logged in yet. Referring to the CANCOM satellite linkup comment - I would assume that since CANCOM is owned by the Shaw Cable company, would that mean that the CANCOM service would be applicable only to subscribers of StarChoice? This question is because there is a "PBS East" mentioned on the Bell ExpressVu website, but when I go onto Lyngsat.com WGBH-2 (NOT WGBH-44, I wonder why) is mentioned as being on one of Bell Canada's Nimiq satellites (I think it's Nimiq-2, I could be wrong). This could theoretically make me infer that WGBH IS the PBS East of ExpressVu.

Also, in support of the opposition mentioned above - I oppose splitting it off entirely yet. The reasoning is because WGBH TV and Radio are SO interlinked by the Foundation that it would be hard to do so. Now, if WGBH decided to take over all New England NPR and PBS stations and called itself the "Broadcasting Corporation of New England" or something to that regard, then yes I'd support splitting it off, but for the time being, no. Even WCAI/WZAI/WNAN is mention in WGBH's radio schedules, and occasionally spots for Cape and Islands NPR can be heard on WGBH 89.7/WNCK 89.5, especially in the summertime. The only thing I can see on the WGBY website that would "separate" it from WGBH is that the WGBY website lacks a "history", which is odd, I think. -134.117.168.232 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

W?

I've seen the name "WGBH Boston" appear as a co-producer on a number of BBC programmes, and always wondered what it was. I see from the article the "GBH" stands for Great Blue Hills, but what does the "W" stand for? 172.207.73.64 12:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. See North American call sign. 121a0012 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wgbx44.gif

Image:Wgbx44.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wgbh2.gif

Image:Wgbh2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Last Chance Garage:A glaring ommission

OF all the WGBH-produced programs listed, why wasn't "Last Chance Garage" included?...this was back in the days BEFORE Tom and Ray Magliozzi(aka "Click and Clack") were household names on NPR.

"Last Chance Garage" was hosted by a Boston-area mechanic named Brad Sears, and there was the official "companion" book that went with it during the second season(now WAAAY long out-of-print). The show was on PBS(through WGBH) for at least five years(from 1981-86).

Please add this excellent show to the official program list.

Thanks,Baldwin91006 02:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Baldwin about this:NOT including "Last Chance Garage" on the list of shows is a disservice to us "backyard mechanics" everywhere...Michaela92399 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I tried to create a page for this series, and about a minute later, IT WAS DELETED!!!...now I'm gonna try again...Michaela92399 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a user was watching this WGBH page last night for ANYTHING that wasn't pro-WGBH, and he/she picked MY page to delete!...now I will definitely try again...Michaela92399 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Michaela...who was it?...was it someone who has a greedy, "rush-to-judgement" factor for deleting your page?...Baldwin91006 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree this is worthy of including. Last Chance Garage was perhaps the first automotive how-to show, several years before Shadetree Mechanic. One series of episodes covered building a Cobra kit car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearheadham (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Digital Channel Numbers

Why are the digital channel numbers for wgbh and wgbx listed as 19 and 43 respectively? As far as I know they're still 2 and 44. WGBH's website makes no reference to different numbers for digital signals. I also have not been able to find any reference to them elsewhere online.--129.64.174.30 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to the FCC's Common Database System search page and plug in "WGBH-TV" under callsign. The digital channel is listed at the bottom of the station information box. The FCC requires that stations PSIP with their analog channel number (even for those stations which will be remaining on different channels after 2009, as with nearly all Boston stations). 121a0012 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So if station are forced to PSIP their original analog channel number what's the point of bothering metnion the digital channel number?--129.64.228.125 (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant to those who want to buy the right antenna or filter in order to receive (or not receive) the digital signal, and for those who are interested in broadcasting technology. 121a0012 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for being slightly off-topic, but all the aforementioned about PSIP etc., does this mean that even though GBH will be on digital channel 19 or whatever, I still tune my television to channel 2 on February 17, 2009? (Yeah, I'm slightly retarded on these kinds of issues...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj Fra (talk • contribs) 02:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless you have one of the first-generation digital tuners that did not implement PSIP in this way. In some cases, it may be necessary to tune the receiver to channel 19 first in order for it to know that channel 2 broadcasts there (but most non-cable consumers will have used the "auto-set" function of their receiver to locate all local digital channels). 121a0012 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for move

The other WGBH stations have their own articles now. The current article should be moved to WGBH-TV, and afterward, the space titled WGBH (without any suffix) should become a disambiguation page. New World Man (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As WGBH is an unlicensed station, unless the station refers to itself as "WGBH-TV", it should be located at WGBH (TV). JPG-GR (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WGBH-TV is a licensed station. Look at the FCC record at http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=WGBH and you'll see that it does have a -TV suffix. New World Man (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, crap, must've typoed. Sorry. JPG-GR (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The organization is one, though, so while it might be appropriate to have separate articles for WGBH-TV and WGBH radio, the main article including history, callsign, station, most of this article, belongs at WGBH. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved WGBH to WGBH-TV. Move successful. --Tamiera (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

VHF Analog chan 2 vs. UHF Digital chan 19

WGBH used to broadcast on VHF Analog channel 2, 54-60 MHz. But now it is broadcasting on UHF Digital channel 19, 500-506 MHz. This is a big, important, hidden detail. It means that viewers need an entirely different antenna to properly receive the new signal. How can we find out for sure if they will be keeping this UHF Digital chan 19 after the VHF Analog channel 2 signal is turned off mid-2009? This is a very important matter for those who want to continue to receive the signal. Please add this information to the article, with a source. (NB: the new channel numbers, such as 2.1 and 2.2, have no real meaning, no connection to actual frequencies, they are just virtual names.) -96.237.78.179 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You can check the FCC's database to see if they have petitioned for a rule-making that would substitute another channel for channel 19. At present, they have elected channel 19. The only other possibility is channel 42 (after WHDH-TV completes its transition), and 19 is a much better place to be. There is no chance whatever that they will go back to VHF-low, and there are no VHF-high channels available in the market (with the pointless exception of channel 8, which would fit if the transmitter were on Nantucket). (Channel 42, if and when somebody applies for it, would have to be within 15 km of both 350 Cedar St. (channel 43) and the UHF Candelabra (channel 41).) I am given to understand that WGBH management would be perfectly happy to drop the broadcast signal entirely, were that not necessary to get on the broadcast-basic cable tier. 121a0012 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Boston metro area UHF OTA channels appear to not be in use. For example, 33-37. Why would these not be available? Are they being used for something else? -96.233.20.92 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, channels 14-16 are land-mobile allotments. Channels 18-20 are in use for DTV. 21 and 23 are precluded by the "donut" first-adjacent spacing rule against WGBY in Springfield and WLWC in New Bedford. There's still an analog class-A on 24. I believe 25 should be available, so long as it's far enough away from Mount Ascutney, Vermont. 26 is a digital LPTV, and would otherwise have donut-hole problems unless located in Hudson. I think 28 may impossible (no intersection of donut holes between 29 at Stiles Hill, Boylston, and 27 at Parmenter Rd, Hudson). 30 would not be possible as a new allotment (donut hole against 29 in Boylston) but is grandfathered as one of the FCC's original 6th R&O allotments. 31 and 32 are in use. 33 is in use at Concord, New Hampshire. 34 is in use at Manchester (actually Goffstown, New Hampshire), and 35 is in use at Derry. 36 is then precluded by donut-hole and spacing to Albany. 37 is reserved for radio astronomy. 38 is possible if located on one of the Newton/Needham towers. 39 is in use. 40 is precluded by co-channel spacing to Springfield and Vineyard Haven. 41 is in use. 42, if WHDH doesn't take it back, would work and is fully spaced. 43 is in use. 44 may be possible. 45 is used in Hartford and Biddeford (Portland). 46 is used in Hartford. 47 is in use here. 48 is possible with a donut-hole limitation to Newton/Needham. 49 is used in Keene and Providence. 50 may be possible in Rehoboth (Providence) if that site is far enough away from Albany.

Summary: channels 25, 28 (in Boylston or Hudson), 38, 42, 44, 48, and 50 (in Providence) might be possible. 121a0012 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that amazing explanation! You obviously know a great deal about a very obscure but interesting field. Where would one learn about these kinds of things? What WP articles cover these subjects from this perspective? Where does this kind of knowledge and data belong in WP, so that anyone interested in "Boston area OTA TV frequency allocation/usage" would be able to find it? -96.233.17.59 (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The general answer to your question is that you hire a consulting engineer. I happen to know the market and the spacing restrictions reasonably well, even though I'm not an engineer (of that sort, anyway); I'd have a much tougher time answering the same question about Dallas, for example. It's not clear to me that this sort of information belongs in Wikipedia; it almost certainly counts as original research. It's research that I was happy to do, because I was interested in the answer, but not encyclopedic. Someone who was suitably motivated might want to use an online mapping service to display the circles of exclusion given the existing FCC rules and allocations in use, but to do so for every market in the country would require the entire FCC database, and lots of individual knowledge about markets and geography. A consulting engineer would combine that with U.S. Census data and software implementing the Longley-Rice propagation model to determine whether each possibility was actually feasible given the totality of FCC rules and economic reality. (There are several vendors of such software.) 121a0012 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can see how the current metroBoston details might not belong in a WP article... I am guessing from what you have said that we don't get to use some broadcast frequencies here because even though we aren't using them, they are in use "near-by", and a transmitter here would be "too close" to an existing broadcast zone that is in use. And are you also saying the although we may be getting signals on two adjacent (digital) freq channels, the actual transmitters have to be spaced by a certain geo physical distance -- about how much? That kind of general info for US OTA freq allocation/use certainly seems to belong in some WP article, along with links to where one would find the details of allocation/use for any particular area.

A bottom-line practical subject/question would be, in general, for US metro areas, how many OTA TV channels are in use, how many allocated to non-TV uses, and how many remain "unallocated and available" for general TV use? I am getting the impression that the general answer is "few or none remain unallocated and available"? -71.174.175.104 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, all of the technical regulations for broadcast television are set out in parts 73 (full-power) and 74 (low-power) of the FCC Rules (Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations), although there is also significant case law. Other countries use different rules, and even within the U.S., different rules apply to the original 6th Report & Order table of allocations than would apply to any new allotment, and different rules apply to stations which are close enough to an international border to require coordination with Canada or Mexico. There are two sets of spacing rules, one based on physical distance and one based on predicted electric fields (using Longley-Rice); proposed allotments must pass the first, and proposed facilities must pass the second. The legal authority for the regulations comes from the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which is codified at Title 47 of the United States Code. The allotment spacing rules are specified at 47 CFR 73.623 paragraph (d). 121a0012 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Translators/Rebroadcasters of WGBH

OK, so the current site mentions a Hyannis translator - however, I remember that there were more translators than that. Could someone put up a complete list of the former translators of WBGH-TV? --Daniel Blanchette 21:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Did BFI use to occupy the spot?

I remember outside the Grossmans in Alston there used to be a big light-blue building that always had trash trucks going in and out of it... It had the big--- sign "BFI". What I can't remember is did that building stretch as far down as their present locations along the turnpike there? CaribDigita (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WGBH Media Access Group

Hi,

I'm a WGBH employee, and would like to help clean up the WGBH-TV article, since I have access to most/all of the details in question in the article.

For starters, I can provide info verifying WGBH's media access history. What's the best way to verify/update facts without problems around COI? I'm happy to contribute facts for some sort of approval ahead of time, to avoid having them deleted later.

Here's the current language:

WGBH is also considered a leader in accessible media services for people who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, blind, or visually impaired. WGBH invented[citation needed] television closed captioning[citation needed], audio description[citation needed] (Descriptive Video Service), and created the Rear Window Captioning System for films[citation needed]; they provide these access services to commercial and public TV producers, and to home video, Web sites, and movie theaters nationwide.

How should I go about contributing the citations needed above?

Thanks in advance. Daisykin (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you are in a conflict-of-interest situation, please put your suggested material here on the discussion page, with references. Then the rest of us can decide what to incorporate into the article...-96.233.30.113 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Production Funding?

Even WGBH's co-productions with, say, the BBC, are costly, and its budget must be a high multiple of most other PBS stations, even WNET. So where does the money come from? Does the station, for instance, have exclusive DVD/other media rights to distribution of its coproductions, which are then advertized on local PBS stations? Has the arrival of BBC America impacted any of this? Janko (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I'd like to see some concrete figures, but so far as all the programs they produce is concerned, the other PBS stations that broadcast WGBH's programs pay for some (and probably most) of the cost. This is how PBS and NPR work in general when it comes to nationally broadcast content from member stations. Bostoner (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Antenna

"WGBH-TV's digital service operates on channel 19 from the same tower, with 700 kW average ERP from a panel antenna 374 meters AAT" http://www.bostonradio.org/stations/72099 (Updated: 2005-03-27)

What is a "panel antenna"? What is the antenna polarization of this signal? Please add a photo of the transmitter tower and the actual antenna to the article. What are the physical dimensions of the antenna?

The new digital OTA TV signal is very difficult to receive in the Boston urban area. Is there any data about this? The problem seems to be signal quality, more than signal strength. Multi-path problems? Seems particularly bad on windy days, or when an airplane passes by.

The channel 19 digital signal seemed sometimes usable in 2009, but mostly much worse (no reception) in 2010. What changed, and why? Are they doing experiments with the transmitter/signal? Is there any public source of information about this?

What special antennas are available for successfully receiving the WGBH channel 19 digital signal in Boston? -96.233.30.113 (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Channel 2.2

The article is vague and confused about 2.2. Previously, it broadcast a 480i SD version of 2.1 HD. Some time in April 2012 it started broadcasting a copy of 480i 44.2 "WGBH World" instead. The only difference seems to be that the 44.2 subchannel is fixed-bandwidth. 2.2 is currently variable-bandwidth, averaging slightly more than 44.2; 2.1 and 2.2 seem to both be variable, sharing a fixed bandwidth channel 19 together.

I can't access this, but maybe it contains useful info:

• "WGBH World moves to channel 2.2 - Radio-Info.com Discussion

boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=210042.0

Radio-Info.com Discussion Boards. Login, April 07, 2012, 04:18:58 .... Author, Topic: WGBH World moves to channel 2.2 (Read 5 times). ssetta. rimember."

When did 2.2 change? Why did it change? Is this connected to the ongoing broadcast antenna issues this month? Is this change temporary?-96.237.1.158 (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Broadcast status

WGBH/WGBX seems to have no public broadcast status page. They seem to hide related information on their "Contact us" page. When there is a problem with the broadcast antenna, they will sometimes put a note there about it. After a while, these notes disappear. There seems to be no public archive of this information.-96.237.4.73 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also noticed this pattern of behavior, which is contrary to the traditions of openness and transparency in public service organizations. While rare, there have been both brief and extended outages of various GBH services. It is difficult to find out what happened either during or after outages, and a public record of these gaps in service does not seem to be available. This Wikipedia Talkpage seems to have the best record I have seen to date. Reify-tech (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

January 2013 broadcast outage

One evening late in January 2013 (Jan 25?) the fiber optic connection from the studios to the antenna site was broken, and WGBH/WGBX broadcast ceased for a few hours. This may have also affected some cable customers. A note was eventually posted on their "contact us" page, and removed within a few days.-96.237.4.73 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

1972

The 1972 indent used to give me nightmares. Thank GOD the logo changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.48.111 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WGBH TV Studios in Basement of Museum of Science Sometime In The 1960s

Once upon a time when I was a child, I remember visiting the Museum of Science and there was a TV studio in the basement. Being the curious person that I was (and that I still am), I loved to touch and play with electronic stuff. I tried to play with some of the equipment and someone got mad at me and told me that I should not be playing with the electronics because that facility was the WGBH TV Studio. Do any of you know if WGBH spent time in the basement of the Museum of Science after their studio fire in Cambridge? Thank you. Allyn (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have heard of this temporary studio arrangement, but have not found documentation of it yet. Reify-tech (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Broadcast outage October 2016

• www.wgbh.org/about/contact.cfm

TRANSMISSION TOWER UPDATE - 10/24/16

On Saturday, October 22, there was a failure in the combined transmission antenna at the Needham tower site that affected over-air service for WGBX 44—our multicast services Create and Kids—as well as WBZ, WCVB, and WSBK, which all share the upper master antenna. Crews have been on the tower since Sunday assessing the situation.

While WGBH 2, which occupies the lower master antenna, was not directly impacted, its signal was temporarily off the air on Monday so the tower crews would not be exposed to its RF radiation.

As the diagnostic work continues, we have collaborated with the tower owner and the other stations that share the upper antenna, to move WGBX 44, WBZ, WCVB, and WSBK to the lower antenna position occupied by WGBH 2. This move has allowed all of those services to get back on the air. And WGBH is now broadcasting on an auxiliary antenna at lower power.

On Tuesday we expect a new set of auxiliary antennas to arrive at the tower to be installed temporarily, and all channels will be moved to them for the duration of the repair work.

-71.174.177.165 (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WGBH-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416074819/http://current.org/files/archive-site/kids/kids0901multicast.shtml to http://current.org/files/archive-site/kids/kids0901multicast.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Add new studio at the Boston Public Library

Text should be added about the new studio in the main branch of the Boston Public Library. Citations should be easy to find. — Lentower (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added coverage of the new Back Bay studio, as part of an expansion and updating of the article. Reify-tech (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

FCC repack, channel sharing, and other issues Aug 2019

I'm trying to figure out what just happened with the FCC repack. Digging out an old DTV converter box that displays OTA rf, virtual, and call sign data it looks like the following is true

WGBH-HD 2.1 is the "first" virtual channel, 1080 aka HD, on RF 5 WGBX-HD 44.1 is the "second" virtual channel, HD, on RF 5

World 2.2 is the nth virtual channel, 720 aka SD, on RF 32 WGBH-SD 2.3 is the nth virtual channel, 720 aka SD, on RF 32 WGBX-SD 44.2 is the nth virtual channel, 720 aka SD, on RF 32 Create 44.3 is the nth virtual channel, 720 aka SD, on RF 32 Kids 44.4 is the nth virtual channel, 720 aka SD, on RF 32

WYCN-CD 15.1 is the 1st??? virtual channel, 1080 aka HD, on RF 32 Cozi 15.2 is the nth virtual channel, 720 aka SD, on RF 32

Yep, 7 virtual channels on RF 32.

I tried to find the FCC docs, but its document templates do not reflect the technical strategy for channel sharing, etc.

The above is "documented" by the OTA encoding as displayed by my 2008 era channel master DTV converter.

Note this reflects the strategy for the incompatible DTV v3 roll out, so figuring out wikipedia templates to handle the multiple RF frequencies for a single broadcaster like WGBH and the multiple broadcasters on a single RF channel will only increase.

This note applies to WGBX, and the Boston NBC OTA situation using multiple transmitters at multiple sites, owned by multiple corporations as ripple effect from yanking NBC franchise from WHDH. WHDH "owns" RF which will be important in future DTV channel sharing in my opinion. Mulp (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

WGBH & Canada

Request for edit: WGBH's signal is no longer available in Canada. Therefore, this entire paragraph could be stricken: Under an agreement with Shaw Broadcast Services, WGBH-TV operates a satellite uplink facility at the station's Needham transmitter site. The facility relays the signals of WGBH-TV and four other Boston-area television stations (CBS owned-and-operated station WBZ-TV, ABC affiliate WCVB, NBC owned-and-operated station WBTS-CD, and Fox affiliate WFXT) to cable and satellite television providers across Atlantic Canada, and also relays the signal of MyNetworkTV affiliate WSBK to pay television providers throughout Canada. As a Canadian company, Shaw is not legally entitled to operate an uplink facility in the United States; as such, the company pays the WGBH Educational Foundation to perform this service on Shaw's behalf.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Code2396 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's my understanding that cable operator Eastlink still offers WGBH in the Halifax, Nova Scotia area and potentially other parts of Atlantic Canada – Eastlink's website doesn't provide region-specific affiliate information anymore but it's listed as being on Eastlink's Halifax lineup on Zap2It and TVPassport. Even if it is no longer offered by Eastlink, IMHO it's still pertinent to note it was available in Canada in the past (there are similar notes in the articles for other American stations like WTOL). — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 21:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"WGBH in Boston" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WGBH in Boston has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5 § WGBH in Boston until a consensus is reached. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

generic complaint

An IP editor has repeatedly deleted the section describing the programming schedule, complaining that it is "generic". While it is not horribly dissimilar to the typical PBS station, this is still information of interest regarding the station. Given that just one editor has moved for this deletion and thus far three different editors have restored it, I am going to restore it again as there is sufficient sign of a working consensus for it. I invite the IP editor to come here and make their concerns known, and remind them to reach consensus for deletion before re-deleting it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Said IP is now blocked for a week, so we are unlikely to hear anything quickly. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ron Hayes vs Ron Hays

Re my edit: Ron Hayes was an actor, but Ron Hays was a digital video artist. Reference: https://museumzero.blogspot.com/2014/07/ron-haysearly-video.html which mentions his history at MIT and his work at WGBH. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 04:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)