Pinnacle Hill TV Tower Info Page
Area Residents' Comments & Concerns Expressed to Date:
  1. Health Hazards from Electro-Magnetic Radiation (EMR), probably not an issue
  2. Interference (RFI) to residents' Electronic Devices similar to or greater than already experienced:
    • Television, both off-the-air and cable
    • Radio
    • Stereo
    • Garage Door Openers
    • Cordless Phones
    • Alarm Systems
    • Baby Monitors
    • Remote Controls
    • Over-the-Air Patient Medical Monitors
  3. Visual and Environmental Impact
  4. Only Channels 21 & 31 seem involved at this point, what do the other stations plan?
  5. Doesn't this affect City Residents as much as those in Brighton?
  6. FCC Approval requires an EMR Study, is this available?
  7. Won't there be "twice as many TV stations" during the 2002-2006 transition period?
  8. Effect of Visual Impact and Interference on Property Values
  9. What recourse would residents have for problems after the fact such as interference etc.
  10. The former AT&T tower being replaced has been unused for some time, why aren't the owners of those towers held accountable for keeping the top of the hill from becoming a scrapyard?
  11. The use of the phrase FCC Mandate on the application and letter is misleading, perhaps even wrong.
  12. Is there a concern for Bio-Med devices and Medical Telemetry at Highland Hospital?
  13. Buffalo has DTV now, what was their experience?
  14. The Cable TV on the street already has problems with ghosts. Is Time-Warner going fix any new problems free-of-charge or will WUHF or WXXI pay?
  15. Isn't the greater issue the addition of transmitters whether new or existing towers and the potential hazards and interference that they may bring? Who controls those additions and who is liable if there are problems?
Additional Comments at and since the 16 May Meeting:
  1. WHEC/WROC concerned about Ghosting on their existing 10/8 signals and opposes proposed location.
  2. Difference of opinion on Digital vs. Analog power level between American Tower and WHEC Director of Engineering
  3. Environmental concern about "Steepslope"
  4. It seems unclear as to who regulates what. Town of Brighton, FCC, FAA, EPA, OSHA, DEC etc.
  5. Unclear as to what role WXXI and WUHF play in this as American Tower is the applicant yet the future is as much a factor of the actions of WUHF, WXXI, WCMF, WPXY
  6. Who controls antenna additions to the tower(s)?
  7. Do the RF analysis and studies done only include the equipment on the proposed tower or both those and the existing. What about WHEC and WROC who are also adding DTV?
  8. Shouldn't all the stations, radio and TV, on the Hill be jointly challenged in regards to EMR and RFI?
  9. FCC Documents state that WXXI and WUHF DTV power (ERP) will be 50 KW and their current NTSC power as 1200 KW each. Records also show that WHEC, WOKR, and WROC who are currently running 316 KW NTSC will add 1000 KW DTV stations. Does this really mean that the cumulative power will go from 3348 KW to 6448 KW during the 2002-2006 transition period? Will WUHF and WXXI really stay at 50 KW and still acheive their required coverage or will there be power increases? Non-FCC sources indicate WUHF and WXXI will switch to 5000 KW! Could this mean more than 10000 KW is in our future? That's 10 Megawatts!
  10. The FCC says that suppliers and manufacturers of the consumer devices have some responsibility relative to RFI. Should Time-Warner, Scientific-Atlanta, TV manufacturers do something?
  11. The American Tower Engineer stated at the 16 May meeting that modern antennas will help reduce the ground level signal levels below what they currently are, citing reductions in the order of 500 uV reduced to 5 uV. If so, can't an Independent Professional Engineer assess the current level contours and then use those levels as not-to-exceed thresholds for the future thus assuring no increase in the interference problem. The applicant and broadcasters could post a bond which would be used for corrective action if there was a compliance issue.
  12. FCC records show that the Height Above Average Terrain for Rochester's TV antennas is one of the 3 lowest in the state yet it has some of the higher power levels. It also appears to be one of the most "urban residential" sites. Isn't that significant?
  13. The watts and ERP etc. are confusing, what does it all mean? See TV Power
  14. IEEE 601 (medical) mentions a 3V/m RFI level. IEEE 1000-4-3 is what susceptible equipment must meet. It has 1-3 defined "severity levels", 1, 3, and 10 V/M. What are the levels in the neighborhood around the base of the tower?
  15. The FCC confirmed that they list DTV as Average power and NTSC as Peak. This means that a 50 KW DTV station has the same Peak power as a 200+ KW NTSC station. Is this part of the the issue with item 17 above? American Tower claimed lower, WHEC/WROC said higher. Which is correct and if higher, how does that affect the RFI?
  16. Going through the FCC Database for present and future stations shows that the cumulative Peak Power will go from 3.5 MW to over 25 Megawatt after 5/1/2002, See Station Plan
Points Discussed at June 11 Meeting with American Tower:
  1. American Towers appeared pretty confident in their ability to get permission to move forward and build the tower. The upshot was: WCMF and WPXY, 2 of the 3 major players in wattage on the Hill would be moving to their tower, WXXI, the other major player would be staying put. Regarding potential antennas being added they said the tower would only hold 10 to maybe 12, with two being backups. Regarding increases in power output, they said no...one guy drew a "coverage map" indicating that the broadcast reach is limited by the FCC and that there is definitely no need for any increased power.
Comments since June 11 Meeting with American Tower:
  1. American Towers claim (#32 above) of no power increase does not agree with current FCC records, see #31
  2. More transmitters mean more power, See...
Synopsis of June 20 Planning Board Meeting
  1. Most of the meeting was technically oriented. The Resident/Engineer was out of town so most residents were lost in the technical jargon. The Town has hired The MRB Group who has an RIT professor who consults with them on Radio matters.
Comments Since June 20 Planning Board Meeting
  1. Besides the power, won't more transmitters/used-frequencies cause problems. What about Fundamental Overload and Intermodulation Distortion (IM) of FM Receivers? I can't get all the FM stations I want now, won't it be worse?
  2. FCC advises that Broadcasters must fix Interference per 73.685(d).
Sysnopsis of Remarks made at Town Board (Supervisor/Council) June 27 Meeting
  1. Jim Lill addressed Supervisor Frankel and Board expressing concerns about the financial impact on the residents
  2. Supervisor Frankel remarked to Mr. Low that the Town should investigate how best to aid the residents beyond what the Planning Board is already doing.
Comments since Town Board (Supervisor/Council) June 27 Meeting
  1. Radiation Hazard Study has been reviewed and shows that worst case levels are far below the limit, less than 10% so Health/Safety is not an issue.
Regarding July 18 Planning Board Meeting
  1. Action Adjourned at Applicant's Request until 8/15 Meeting
  2. Communications Section of Agenda states that Supervisor Frankel sent a letter to FCC regarding RFI, Board has copy. who consults on Radio Tower matters.
  3. Communications Section of Agenda states that Board received a Letter from William P Johnson, RIT Professor who consults on Radio Tower matters.
Overview of August 15 Planning Board Meeting
  1. WUHF added as co-applicant
  2. Applicant's consultant presented some clarifications
  3. Board requested more information
Overview of August 22 Town Board Meeting
  1. Resident Jim Lill presented an overview of the the concerns and a request that a Committee to specifically study all related aspects be appointed.