Denver, CO - OTA [Text View] - Page 10

DP1

08-08-02, 03:29 PM

Yeah but the FCC isnt simply that gullible are they? Obviously they must think theres much more to it than the stations wanting to delay. Otherwise it makes it sound like they read the supplied paperwork and say "Oh golly..looks like the stations want to go on the air but the County wont let them. Well, cant be the stations fault then, cant penalize them for that".

I think theres alot of factors that come into play that so happen to make this situation fairly unique. For example, do not most agree that the current tower location is the most logical place for continued operation of the transmissions due to the local topography? If the answer is yes theres really not more that needs to be said because obviously the people that are in a position to give the green light simply wont do it. And I dont see much reason to believe they'll ever do it no matter what kind of proposal is made.

If I'm right in that assumption what are the alternatives? Make the stations pick a location even if it doesnt serve the public at large as effectively as it alwasy has? Well thats fine. Why doesnt the FCC tell them they have to do it that way then? Apparently they dont think that at this point it would be the best solution. But maybe they recognize that at some point it will come to that. And even if they see it that way is there really any reason to force the issue right now. Afterall it's not hard for them to look around elsewhere in the nation and see that even where the stations are on air, the mere presence of an OTA digital signal hasnt meant much to the populace as a whole and probably wont for a few years to come anyway for any number of other reasons.

Bottomline, sure I dont doubt that the stations arent exactly fretting over the notion of having these "obstacles", but to suggest these obstacles arent very real and very tangible is a bit much IMO.

For those that feel the stations are more at fault than the obstacles, I'd like to hear what you think the stations should do. And particularly within the realm of my assumption that no matter what they do, they wont ever get the green light at the current location. IOW, again, would it then be time to move on to another location and be "done" with it?

Geof

08-08-02, 03:43 PM

Bottomline, sure I dont doubt that the stations arent exactly fretting over the notion of having these "obstacles", but to suggest these obstacles arent very real and very tangible is a bit much IMO.
I've have never, ever said these obstacles aren't real. I do not however, believe they are being diligently attacked by the stations (not counting KRMA). Dan you and I have gone round and round on this on several occasions before and I really don't feel like doing it again. I am simply tired of no progress.

HDJello

08-08-02, 03:54 PM

For those that feel the stations are more at fault than the obstacles, I'd like to hear what you think the stations should do. And particularly within the realm of my assumption that no matter what they do, they wont ever get the green light at the current location. IOW, again, would it then be time to move on to another location and be "done" with it?

One of the letters in the fcc file was to a station in Ketchikan Alaska, which was attempting to move to a new tower by acquiring another station. The deal fell through, and the fcc response was something to the effect of "you should have tried other tower sites.

In response to Dan's quote above, the stations should:

All apply for STA to broadcast as KCNC, KRMA, and KMGH have done. Also, they need to attempt to boost the power on those STA to achieve broader reach (particularly KMGH).

Get the equipment. For example, does KUSA have any? A post here a while back mentioned the $ they would save by getting the equipment later rather than sooner. Assuming LCG is one day approved, how much behind the curve will they be getting on the air by having no equipment?

Alternative locations. Somebody ought to put something up on Squaw and see how bad it really is. An STA if nothing else would be better info than any theoretical arguing about its shortcomings.

In the end, if they are never going to get the green light to proceed at the current location, then they ought to be going elsewhere sooner rather than later. And the FCC ought to tell them so.

JohnJr

08-08-02, 03:54 PM

I already posted what I think they should do (15 minute blackout during prime-time), but it was rightly critiqued here :) Although I do think "public awareness" (not necessarily acceptance of HDTV), is the key. Short of that or FCC action, I don't see (s)CARE allowing anything on their mountain.

-John

Geof

08-08-02, 04:13 PM

Somebody ought to put something up on Squaw and see how bad it really is.Somebody did (well not digital but analog). Ch 12 is there, and it is bad for me at least because my TV doesn't think anything is on Ch12 (The TV does lock onto some crappy signals from Co Springs and one in Cheyene though).....Maybe they can put up a really really tall tower though I don't know if that would help. In the meantime trying a low power digital signal probably doesn't buy much (as far as gathering info) given that 12 is already there.....

All apply for STA to broadcast as KCNC, KRMA, and KMGH have done. Also, they need to attempt to boost the power on those STA to achieve broader reach (particularly KMGH). I agree with this...!

JMartinko

08-08-02, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Geof
I've have never, ever said these obstacles aren't real. I do not however, believe they are being diligently attacked by the stations (not counting KRMA). Dan you and I have gone round and round on this on several occasions before and I really don't feel like doing it again. I am simply tired of no progress.

Dan
I think?? Geof's comments have to do with the fact that the stations in the LCG did not even bother to submit all of the required reports and documentation in their first application a few years back. I forget all of the details but as I recall they didn't bother to turn in the required alternate site study among other things. I also know they didn't cover the case of the guy wires being too long and a danger to offsite properties. Such items sure indicate to me that they weren't in any hurry to get on the air.

All that being said, you are likely right that even if all of the correct forms and reports were filed Jeffco and (S)CARE likely would have found other reasons to reject the application. I do strongly believe that had the first application been more thorough, however, that the second application would have a stronger chance of being accepted. In my own mind, with the half ass-ed way the stations handled the first application, the current new application is really the first serious application. Fortunately for the LCG stations, they can point to (S)CARE as the reason the first application was so poorly received.

I also think the poor work on the first application helped galvanize the local opposition to the towers and confirm to many in the Lookout area that the stations really were poor tenants. The extra 2-3 years the opposition has had to organize and spread their lies about the 'evils' of RF energy has also served to stir up additional opposition that likely would not have existed had the first application been more thorough. Had the first application been rejected only because of a few nits, the second one could have been filed much much sooner and much of this local opposition would not have had time to organize in protest.

As for the comments on Squaw, I can't get channel 12 worth a darn here in Boulder either. It is very snowy at best. The irony in all of this is that even though I don't think there are any other viable alternatives to Lookout myself, any of the other known sites are also still in Jeffco and still opposed by (S)CARE. That not only give (S)CARE a lot of influence in all of this, but also means the majority of the front range has no vote for the commissioners who are making the decisions. So much for regional planning.

santellavision

08-08-02, 04:49 PM

Here's another idea...

Maybe (S)Care & JeffCo would go for this... (Since they seem to be one in the same these days, I think we should just put them together and call them 'ScareCo')

What if the stations (2,4,6,7,9,20+) agree to put Low-power x-mitters on Lookout and then joint-own a couple of small repeater towers to fill in the region. This way ScareCO get's way lower RF, and the stations get on the air in our lifetime.

Everybody wins (except the lawyers) With what it's going to cost to fight this for the next decade, they can build all the repeaters with the fee's the lawyers would have gotten!

Geof

08-08-02, 05:14 PM

Dan
I think?? Geof's comments have to do with the fact that the stations in the LCG did not even bother to submit all of the required reports and documentation in their first application a few years back. I forget all of the details but as I recall they didn't bother to turn in the required alternate site study among other things. I also know they didn't cover the case of the guy wires being too long and a danger to offsite properties. Such items sure indicate to me that they weren't in any hurry to get on the air.That’s certainly one example (and BTW, I agree with your logic on how the first app may affect the second). In my mind there is clear and convincing evidence that the stations have engaged in foot dragging and have taken advantage of the Lookout situation to delay their implementation. But really, this is a rehash of discussion that’s back a “few” pages (somewhere back there). I mean no disrespect to Dan. I respect his opinion and indeed I agree with most everything he posts (the notable exception being this topic) but I simply don’t see the point of revisiting this topic again.

What if the stations (2,4,6,7,9,20+) agree to put Low-power x-mitters on Lookout and then joint-own a couple of small repeater towers to fill in the region.I don’t think the FCC is licensing repeaters for use with DTV, but I may be wrong. Perhaps one of the stations folks could answer this….

DP1

08-08-02, 05:56 PM

Naturally I'd be the first one to admit that Geof has forgetten more about this issue than I'll ever even know. Far more well versed.

The only reason I said anything was because jello asked about the FCC tie in and why they have given such lenient treatment. In my mind it's simply because they realize it's not just the stations fault by any stretch of the imagination (and I know Geof has never said that it was). That must be self-evident because otherwise just *why would* they let Denver stations off the hook and not the one in Alaska or any other they've called out?

If all these other stations that probably arent any more or less anxious to get on the air than ours are, are being "penalized", and in a number of cases in places where they're not so far behind the original roll out schedule to begin with, something has to be different (and perhaps decidedly so) about their situation than what the stations face here (as seen by the FCC) doesnt it?

Unless our guys simply write "craftier" letters which I dont buy because if the FCC is that uncommitted to get to the bottom of an issue (just taking the stations word for it) it is a scary thought. Not to mention theres a bunch of people that should be fired at all those other stations for not themselves being able to simply put the blame on somebody else.

JohnJr

08-08-02, 06:57 PM

I've been in this round-robin argument of acessing blame on people too. And, while it's been re-hashed a billion times now, I stand by the argument that (s)CARE is not going to allow anything up there. They certainly won't today.

If LCG had done the "perfect application" back whenever the first app was denied, I have no doubt that it would have been denied. I don't know when (s)CARE got started, but my gut feeling is it was waaaay before the first LCG app. After all, they just want the antennas off Lookout.

-John

JohnJr

08-08-02, 07:03 PM

From their web-site. (s)CARE was founded in 1987.

The Canyon Area Residents for The Environment, C.A.R.E., was formed in 1987

-John

Geof

08-08-02, 07:08 PM

I've been in this round-robin argument of acessing blame on people too. And, while it's been re-hashed a billion times now, I stand by the argument that (s)CARE is not going to allow anything up there. They certainly won't today.I'm pretty much at that point too. If this is true we won't see HDTV in earnest around here till '06 or '07 because they'll have to find a new site and start all over - and probably have a whole new set of homeowners bickering.

Dan, I realize my comment was perhaps a bit too simplistic but I have no faith the stations have really tried hard and I have no faith the FCC has pushed them to try hard. There are lots of (S)CARE letters on the FCC site and I don't think any of the stations have a hard time documenting these issues. A long while ago I read something on the FCC site that basically eluded to the fact the FCC was "rubber stamping" extension requests for Denver stations. Not sure where to find that now but I am fairly certain it is not a figment of my imagination. As to why the FCC doesn't force them to move on and consider other sites I do not know.

JohnJr

08-08-02, 07:25 PM

Geof,

Force them to consider Squaw (Is that the one that is out of JeffCo?) The reason that the FCC doesn't force them to consider alternative sites is that maybe, well DUH, Lookout is the site!

This is not a oh the stations should consider alternative sites thing, this is a flat out war.

-John

(and IMHO, and no offense meant Geof)

DP1

08-08-02, 07:46 PM

I'd like to know more about how it shook down in other cities in general, the bigger cities I mean. Not enough to go research it mind you, but still.

Why do I get the feeling that in most cases as long as the stations didnt want to select a whole new site that people generally didnt give a crap. None of this re-zoning and non-conforming and digital isnt analog nonsense. It's an existing TV tower, do what you want within reason. And switching to digital is within reason not to mention mandated anyway. Plus it'd only stand to reason that it'd be "healthier" being new and presumably better engineered equipment to begin with.

It's when theyd want to actually move to a new location that people that would newly be affected would logically have a beef.

Now again, there I could be dead wrong in making generalizations like that. But if I'm not, thats one of the things that makes our situation "different" cause this aint like the flatland where could just "pick a different skyscraper" and have the end result be about the same as it was before.

smithdzd

08-08-02, 08:15 PM

Did anyone see the story that KUSA just did on the 6:00pm news talking about the FCC making digital tuners mandatory by 2007? Adele Arakawa was the one talking about it. It was mentioned that the transition to Digital in denver was being held up over disputes and that KUSA was involved in the group trying to get it going...

Yeah RIGHT!! Where is the freakin' low power tower on top of Republic? If little ole' KRMA PBS can put up a tower, then certainly Colorado's News Leader could do it.

We all need to write in to 9News and tell them that it has also been held up by stations like theirselves who haven't even made an attempt at a low power solution that could have been done years ago!!

- Dustin

KWGN-DT

08-08-02, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by santellavision
Don,
Any word yet of the approval from JeffCo on your 1/2 power X-mitter?

Still waiting & hopeful.

Don

Geof

08-09-02, 12:50 AM

Why do I get the feeling that in most cases as long as the stations didnt want to select a whole new site that people generally didnt give a crap. None of this re-zoning and non-conforming and digital isnt analog nonsense. It's an existing TV tower, do what you want within reason. And switching to digital is within reason not to mention mandated anyway. Didn't work for KWGN and their zoning is less restrictive than the other stations (except KDVR). The LCG stations have more restrictive zoning making it more difficult to do anything. As to the statement "It's an existing TV tower, do what you want within reason" I think we've covered this in the past. Unfortunately I don't live in JeffCo and any complaints I file go in one ear and out the other. Perhaps JeffCo residents should call their county government and give 'em an earful if you think that'll help - kinda preachin to the choir here....

It's when they'd want to actually move to a new location that people that would newly be affected would logically have a beef.

Now again, there I could be dead wrong in making generalizations like that. Yeap, you're right. You're dead wrong (unfortunately) because people do have a beef even if the stations don't want to move to a new site. Just ask KWGN and even KDVR. I suggest you go to the county site and download the Jefferson County Telecommunications Land Use Plan and give it a read.

And switching to digital is within reason not to mention mandated anyway. Plus it'd only stand to reason that it'd be "healthier" being new and presumably better engineered equipment to begin with. Don't know how you've come to this conclusion. Health hazards are based on RF levels. To maintain (an approximate) constant coverage area RF power must be increased as frequency is increased. The digital channels are: 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 34, 35, 40, 43, 51 so you can see these are higher channels numbers (for our main stations at least) and are therefore higher in frequency and consequently require higher transmitting (actually erp) power (than the analog channels). I believe our major stations are authorized for up to a magawatt on average which, on average, is quite a bit more power than the stations are broadcasting on their analog channels. If you're interested jump on over to the FCC site this page (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html) and type in the call letters. For example, KWGN is licensed for 100 KW on ch2 and 1000KW on Ch 34.

Interestingly enough (and why I chose KWGN as an example) KWGN has an STA (Special Temporary Authorization) for 450 KW ERP so if JeffCo cooperates they should be set to go.....

JohnJR,
No offense taken. However, given the fact that coverage for Squaw is spotty and the FCC actually requires the stations to maintain 95% (or maybe it's 90%) of their analog coverage area Squaw is probably not viable even from the FCC point of view (much less the station point of view).

DP1

08-09-02, 01:03 AM

I understand what you're saying Geof but everything you quoted was in reference to my guessing how it shook down in other cities, not here.

Obviously we know it was nothing like that here, nor ever could be, or we wouldnt be having this discussion. We'd be watching most everything in digital.

Geof

08-09-02, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by DP1
I understand what you're saying Geof but everything you quoted was in reference to my guessing how it shook down in other cities, not here. Gee, I guess I shoulda went to bed......:eek:

Mgibsoj

08-09-02, 09:06 AM

In retrospect, perhaps it could be argued that the entire concept of the LCG was part of the foot-dragging ploy, the concept of tower reduction hasn't been appreciated at all by ScareCo (I like that term!) - but all it has done is to reduce the number of targets on (s)CARE's radar screen - the remainder will disappear via obsolescence. It certainly added a higher level of complexity since it does represent new construction and is now a home for a bunch of 'new services'. If the stations just tried and failed to put the DTV antennas on their existing towers, and Jeffco (of course) starts their comedy routine of non-conformance, telecom act, RF, and all the other tricks up their sleeve, the stations could be individually responsible for pointing to Jeffco as the problem. At that point, it would have been easier for the FCC to get involved and request the scientific evidence/statistics from Jeffco or face the reality of DTV on all the network towers. But not now that its the LCG - and that is another difference between here and everywhere else. In essence, upgrade first, then consolidate. Doing the two things at once has turned out to be more expensive, lengthy, and has a good chance of complete failure. I've only seen the approach (of ignoring risk factors) in the tech/business world happen frequently in Denver - but I've admittedly had a somewhat limited exposure. And, Jeffco is the only source I've ever seen that defines a service by its underlying technology. Home milk delivery would become a new service, not just have another option, if a new dairy product was offered - incredible, and of course they all have a new newspaper delivery service due to the merger of the News/Post. They'd better not even think of upgrading their delivery trucks to natural gas or electric power. But it had to be fair - it's been on the books for 9 years and their brain trust agrees with it. So, my question is - do the stations individually have an alternate plan to use their existing towers and (if so) when would that be implemented?

DP1

08-09-02, 10:15 AM

I know it doesnt do any good to talk about whats happening in other areas but I just do that to put it in some sort of perspective. It seems like in other places (comparable size markets) the biggest beefs might simply be a station or 2 that isnt on the air yet and perhaps almost admittedly cause they're not sold on the concept, dont want to open their pocketbook just yet, or whatever.

Here on the other hand we have a situation where we dont have a specific target. Not that it would do any good if we did. But regardless, we dont even know exactly who to blame. We play in the "Blame of the Week". One week it's the tree huggers fault because of issues over health concerns, unsightlyness, property values, etc. One week it's JeffCo because they have an axe to grind over past deeds or because they think tv isnt always tv or because they dont seem to think they have any responsibility in helping come to a solution, or because they're catering to special interests for their own good. One week it's the stations themselves because their proposal was totally inadequate, the time elapsed between re-submission was far too long, because they dont feel the need to inform the pubic, because they dont all show good faith by coming up with temporary solutions, or just because they flat out want to delay it as long as possible. One week it's the FCC because they dont seem to even care, because they wont put thier foot down with the stations, or because they let themselves be snow jobbed by the stations.

Then the next month we just start all over again from the beginning.

When you have all that (and really no good alternative site out of JeffCo) instead of just a couple stations claiming hardship, justifiably or not, you can sure understand why always have had, and will continue to have a long row to hoe baby.

Geof

08-09-02, 10:16 AM

So, my question is - do the stations individually have an alternate plan to use their existing towers and (if so) when would that be implemented?Very good question, and one they refused to answer during the LCG/AVS meeting.

I argued against the LCG way back when I wrote my letter to the FCC. I thought then, and still do think, putting all our eggs in one basket is stupid. It's also anti-competitive in that it's one for all or all for none type of thing. These stations don't have to worry about any other station blowing their own horn about broadcasting HD because they'll all come online at essentially the same time. In contrast, one would wonder if KUSA would still be digital-less if KCNC and KRMA were broadcasting anything near full power..... I also think the LCG thing makes it a bit easier for the FCC to rubber stamp extension requests - how easy would it be for KUSA to get an extension if KCNC and/or KMGH found a way to do full power. It's probably a fair bit easier to jump to the conclusion that things must really be bad in Denver if none of the major network stations can get county approval.

Geof

08-09-02, 10:25 AM

But regardless, we don't even know exactly who to blame. We play in the "Blame of the Week".Good, bad, or indifferent I've been pretty consistent in "blaming" the stations and (S)CARE (in that order in my mind). I have waffled on JeffCo but now see them as a major part of the problem too. So, I've come around to blaming the stations and ScareCo (again in that order).

Disclaimer: When I say stations I am referring to their management (or lack thereof), not their Engineering staff.

markdl

08-09-02, 10:27 AM

A couple of interesting things that I've seen this week:

First, Marv Rockford was fired on Tuesday from KCNC. Of the station GM's, he was the only one we've seen in a public forum pushing for the LCG app. Probably doesn't bode well, even though he was fired for news ratings moreso than anything else.

Second, I was watching the KMGH newscast last night and Bertha Lynn was talking about the FCC mandate to put digital tuners in televisions by next year. To close the story, she said as an aside that next season all of ABC's shows would be in HD...of course she didn't say that only 14 of us can actually receive the HD signals from KMGH...

santellavision

08-09-02, 10:47 AM

So, my question is - do the stations individually have an alternate plan to use their existing towers and (if so) when would that be implemented?I think they all thought (If all else fails) they could just 'make the change' at the 2006 date. Well... now that ScareCo has determined that DTV is Not defined as 'Same Service' as Analog TV, the stations can't just replace their Analog X-mitters with Digital. Also, i'm not sure they can do that technically without modifying or replacing their ancient antennas, thus asking ScareCo and their adjustment board... back on the ScareCo 'Gerbil-Wheel'...

If i didn't love Colorado so much, I'd just move.

Related Note:
There was an article in today's Denver Post on the FCC Tuner thing. They
also did have a few comical local bits:The LCG is negotiating with Jefferson County to consolidate their television towers'Negotiating' -sounds like it'll happen any day-yeah right!The stations cannot broadcast digitally until that deal, or another is sealed, representatives said.Hmm, the LCG sounds real confident huh?

Also, i wish the paper's writers get their facts straight. They also said that KDVR is broadcasting full power from atop Lookout.

RonAuger

08-09-02, 11:21 AM

They also said that KDVR is broadcasting full power from atop Lookout. [/B]Yes --they are. But last time I looked, they were broadcasting their analog signal on 32, due to some equiptment failure (at the station, not the tower).

JMartinko

08-09-02, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by smithdzd
Did anyone see the story that KUSA just did on the 6:00pm news talking about the FCC making digital tuners mandatory by 2007? Adele Arakawa was the one talking about it. It was mentioned that the transition to Digital in denver was being held up over disputes and that KUSA was involved in the group trying to get it going...

Yeah RIGHT!! Where is the freakin' low power tower on top of Republic? If little ole' KRMA PBS can put up a tower, then certainly Colorado's News Leader could do it.

We all need to write in to 9News and tell them that it has also been held up by stations like theirselves who haven't even made an attempt at a low power solution that could have been done years ago!!

- Dustin

I didn't see that report, but I heard this mornings' business report while getting ready for work and they made a mojor point of reporting that these new tuners would add about $250 to the cost of each TV. It was almost as if they didn't want anyone to go out an buy an HD ready set. I can't imagine why they would have that attitude. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting that they would never allow a PSA about HDTV, and won't report on the Lookout situation, and their station manager told us the news 'must remain independent', yet they see no problem putting up the absolute worst case scenario about the cost of the DTV tuners (which is more likely to be about $20 per set in mass production). I guess that is why they are Denver's Leader, they are just so far ahead of any of us in their knowledge of HD that we can only marvel at their wisdom.
:mad:

PS: Busy thread this morning!

I read some of the other articles after I posted this and am not surprised by the KCNC firing. Their news department is obviously suffering from budget cuts since they spent money on the DTV low power signal and Channel 9 has not had to spend a dime and can use the money for new department glitz. Their owners are probably PO'd that KCNC didn't follow the leader and leave the DTV off the air until 200?.

Mgibsoj

08-09-02, 11:35 AM

IMO, the 'not being same service' is part of the whole comedy act, as is the 'forthcoming RF report - in just a few short years!' and zoning and all the other self-serving/self-supporting rules. It would be hoped that the FCC could see through that for what it is.

I also believe that using their own towers for DTV, whatever that entails, needs to be addressed now and in front of the FCC. The FCC, OTH, needs to also play a role in demanding documents in 90 days supporting the ScareCo RF/safety/health concerns that would survive the same level of scrutiny as an FDA submission of a biotech. This would be the most direct route to DTV in Denver. If the LCG succeeds, fine, but there should/could be a fall-back in place to have everything sealed by the end of this year. Nothing has, and probably never will, happen unless there is a definitive plan including fall backs. Fail to plan = plan to fail.

As you can tell from my posts, my communicative talents are non-existent. Can we make a collective stab to get a recent appraisal to the FCC Media Bureau and what plans need to be in place for DTV in Denver, and how the FCC can make it happen, if LCG fails. I'll take a stab if anyone thinks it would help.

Geof

08-09-02, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by RonAuger
Yes --they are. But last time I looked, they were broadcasting their analog signal on 32, due to some equiptment failure (at the station, not the tower). Actually I think they're more like 1/3 power on the DT channel....

Geof

08-09-02, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by JMartinko

I didn't see that report, but I heard this mornings' business report while getting ready for work and they made a moor point of reporting that these new tuners would add about $250 to the cost of each TV. It was almost as if they didn't want anyone to go out an buy an HD ready set. I can't imagine why they would have that attitude. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting that they would never allow a PSA about HDTV, and won't report on the Lookout situation, and their station manager told us the news 'must remain independent', yet they see no problem putting up the absolute worst case scenario about the cost of the DTV tuners (which is more likely to be about $20 per set in mass production). I guess that is why they are Denver's Leader, they are just so far ahead of any of us in their knowledge of HD that we can only marvel at their wisdom.
:mad:

No disrespect intended but why the hell is anyone watching KUSA. There are other stations and other news broadcasts. They not only thumb their noses at the digital community they apparently go out of their way to make it sound horrible yet folks still watch them. Why? Are you guys like abused housewives who seem to forget about getting beat up?

Now I can understand watching KUSA when the Bronco's are playing (but listen to Dave on KOA)......

I read some of the other articles after I posted this and am not surprised by the KCNC firing. Their news department is obviously suffering from budget cuts since they spent money on the DTV low power signal and Channel 9 has not had to spend a dime and can use the money for new department glitz. Their owners are probably PO'd that KCNC didn't follow the leader and leave the DTV off the air until 200?. You do understand that CBS owns KCNC right?

dr_mal

08-09-02, 11:53 AM

KUS who? I watched a really cool Copter4/police chase on KCNC yesterday morning.

I wish they'd put little Celsius temperatures in their forecast like my former news source of choice, though :( -- I'm still trying to figure Farenheit out. Freezes at 32, boils at 212? WTF?!?

Geof

08-09-02, 12:03 PM

All good points Mark. I'm in pretty much full agreement with your assessment. Folks are probably tired of hearing from me so I cast my vote to ask you to take a stab at "getting a recent appraisal to the FCC Media Bureau".

I think we may be in for a very very long wait if something isn't done.

JMartinko

08-09-02, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Geof
No disrespect intended but why the hell is anyone watching KUSA. There are other stations and other news broadcasts. They not only thumb their noses at the digital community they apparently go out of their way to make it sound horrible yet folks still watch them. Why? Are you guys like abused housewives who seem to forget about getting beat up?

Now I can understand watching KUSA when the Bronco's are playing (but listen to Dave on KOA)......

You do understand that CBS owns KCNC right?

Some slack is required here, I am only partly evil. Technically I wasn't watching KUSA, I had my radio (which has TV bands) on in my bedroom while getting ready for work and had the sound on. So technically I wasn't watching KUSA. I like to hear the news when I wake up and can't stand KOA radio coverage.

On the other point, I do know KCNC is owned by CBS. As for KCNC's owners, we all know in the broadcast business, the bottom line is ratings and profits, and my argument/feeling is that KCNC's ratings probably suffer because they spent some of the station money on DTV (which I do appreciate), while their ratings competitor KUSA, used the (S)CARECo excuse to use that same money to expand their own ratings. As a bottom line CEO, I would be more concerned about ratings and profits than I would with whether KCNC DTV is on the air in a market where no other network (for all practical purposes) is on the air either, and won't be until the new tower is built.

CBS is backing HDTV but not at the expense of profits, otherwise we would be watching all of the AFC games in HD this fall for example. I think the argument might be different if KCNC televised local news in HD and no one else did, as that might be reason to expect future ratings improvement for local news, but that is NOT the case, and I doubt they can justify the HD expense as a result. All that being said, I am indeed happy that they chose to spend the money on their HD low power service, I just wished, as we all do, that it was a level playing field and the other stations were doing the same thing until Lookout is built.

Geof

08-09-02, 02:14 PM

Some slack is required here, I am only partly evil. Technically I wasn't watching KUSA, I had my radio (which has TV bands) on in my bedroom while getting ready for work and had the sound on.Ok, you're excused - partly ;)

I don't know why anyone was fired or any of that but I do know that KCNC News lost a helluva lot of credibility (for me) during the Hayman fire coverage. They - at one point - put a map on the screen showing Roxborough Park South of Sedalia and Deckers west of the fire. If they can't even get a damn map right how much other crap are they spewing. I haven't watched them since. I confess I did sneek peeks at Ch 9 news but I pretty much watched 7. Now that the Hayman fire is over it's NPR to & from work and USA Today on the web....

pookers

08-09-02, 02:21 PM

check this out:
Thank you for your interest in KBDI Channel 12. All public broadcasters
are federally mandated to commence broadcasting of a digital signal by May
2003. It is important to note that concurrently, KBDI Channel 12 will
continue to broadcast its analog signal until May of 2006.

KBDI Channel 12 will be in full compliance with the May 2003 deadline
regarding broadcast of our digital signal. Once we have received all
equipment necessary to support the digital signal, we will then be able to
determine an approximate launch date. Please feel free to check back with
us on a monthly basis for updated information about the date of our
digital launch; such information will also be posted in our monthly
program guide, Choice magazine.

Kim Johnson
Vice President of Broadcast Operations

continuing:
can I post your reply in the avsforum=>status of Denver tower thread?
>I am sure you are fully aware of the Tower Fiasco.
>
>thanx.
>p.s. I am an avid viewer of Tuesday nights' Eastenders.

Mr. Murray,

That would be fine, and yes, we are aware of the location difficulties being experienced by some broadcasters in the Denver
area. I am also pleased that you enjoy EastEnders; we recently renewed our programming acquisition contract for that series.

Kim Johnson
Vice President of Broadcast Operations

DP1

08-09-02, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Geof
Good, bad, or indifferent I've been pretty consistent in "blaming" the stations and (S)CARE (in that order in my mind). I have waffled on JeffCo but now see them as a major part of the problem too. So, I've come around to blaming the stations and ScareCo (again in that order).

I know you have, Geof and thats cool. My point wasnt a question of who may or not be blaming which, but just the mere fact that theres 3 or maybe even 4 choices to choose from to begin with no matter which order they go in. Thats the scary part of it because they are all powerful in thier own right and if all of them, much less even just 1 or 2 of them dont give in some, or take some charge to get this finalized, we got no shot.

Obviously they dont seem to be able to come to an agreement on much of anything aside from probably thinking that whatever the solution is, it's to have long term implications for better or worse which has to be weighed far more heavily (even if it's self serving to those entities of course) than what any other entity might be wanting in the short term. Whether our particular little segment of the community likes it or not.

That being the case IMO, the only recourse we have is to "wish" it get settled. Which brings to mind the old adage.. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Geof

08-09-02, 02:32 PM

Thanks for the info on KBDI pookers. If you email them again perhaps you could ask them if their digital setup will provide any better coverage (ie, maybe they'll be using a taller antenna?).

Thats the scary part of it because they are all powerful in their own right and if all of them, much less even just 1 or 2 of them dont give in some, or take some charge to get this finalized, we got no shot.
You're right about that. I really can't visualize what will happen if/when LCG2 is rejected. As I previously posted I think the "same service" ruling could have negative consequences so one has to wonder if that will or won't be overturned (and I doubt KWGN will do anything about that until the 1/2 power setup is rejected or approved by JeffCo). Assuming the worst case that LCG2 is rejected late next year and the stations realize they won't be able to upgrade their existing Lookout facilities then what? I suppose they could go try to find some other site but given all the noise they've made about Lookout being best I think the whole mess will end up in court and/or the FCC will step in - and that could take awhile to sort out. A long while actually.....

JMartinko

08-09-02, 04:55 PM

Geof and DPI
I agree with you both in the fact that there are so many sides opposed or at least not trying very hard that we are years away, and I also think you are right in thinking the FCC will eventually have to come in and settle this even if it is to decare digital and analog are the same service. I find the entire process more than just discouraging.

That is why I posted a few pages back that if you really want to get network HD I would suggest (not recommend since some methods are of questionable legality) that people start considering satellite dishes. Maybe Denver will become the national headquarters for a "C-Band BUD revival". It will be sweet to see Jeffco flooded with complaints from neighbors of people who put up 7-12 foot dishes in the back yard to watch HD. Not to mention the shock in the faces of all those homeowners assiciation presidents.

santellavision

08-10-02, 10:59 AM

Seems like i remember about 40 or 50 pages ago that somebody had a new name at the FCC to write to. If anybody's got that, please post it again.

I feel the only say we have in all this mess is keep writing to the FCC. Maybe it's time again for a 'group-write'. I know, I know, we've all written to them at some point, but, what the hell, it can't hurt to try again. Have we done a formal letter with signed petitions and FedEx'd it directly to somebody?

mbuchana

08-10-02, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by pookers

KBDI Channel 12 will be in full compliance with the May 2003 deadline
regarding broadcast of our digital signal. Once we have received all
equipment necessary to support the digital signal, we will then be able to
determine an approximate launch date. Please feel free to check back with
us on a monthly basis for updated information about the date of our
digital launch; such information will also be posted in our monthly
program guide, Choice magazine.

Kim Johnson
Vice President of Broadcast Operations

This is certainly a piece of good news. From here, away from the "shadows", Squaw Mt. provides a great signal (based on analog ch. 12).

I hope they are able to offer all of the PBS digital offerings, which are excellent based on what I've seen. Unfortunately, they are quite limited in number.

Regarding LCG and the FCC, I really don't think anything will happen there until the county has acted on the filed proposal. I am not as gloomy as some here on its prospects for approval, but the lengthy process through the county is hard to believe.

Mark

Mgibsoj

08-11-02, 05:55 PM

As mentioned a page or two ago, here's my first cut at some sort of letter. I'd looking for fixes for any misrepresentations/inaccuracies and perhaps an idea if this is really in line with what is generally felt here. This is being written from the context that many of us more distant wishful viewers in lower elevations are experiencing (low power = no power). Any suggestions to this would be most appreciated. I see the from the fcc.gov/mb website they have the email for comments of mbinfo@fcc.gov. Any thoughts on the best way to get noticed (mass snailmail, lots of cc's, etc.)?

Dear Sirs:

As a television viewer within the Denver Designated Market Area (DMA), I fully support of the switch to digital TV (DTV). Residents within the Denver DMA, however, continue to be denied the opportunity to receive digital network signals as were mandated by the FCC since 1999 in Denver.

I am writing this letter to register my complaint that the FCC continues to be a non-participant in the implementation of digital television within the Denver DMA despite the demonstrated inability to resolve the problems without FCC intervention. The disparity of DTV availability in Denver versus DTV availability in the other top 30 markets is unacceptable and I am respectfully requesting the FCC provide relief from this situation.

While the FCC has been proactive in taking steps to ensure the switch to DTV, it is documented that the Lookout Mountain broadcasters in conjuction with the Jefferson County Government (JeffCo) have been proactive in prohibiting the transmission of DTV from their towers on Lookout Mountain. For over 50 years the Lookout Mountain site has been the primary location for television transmission as it provides optimum coverage for serving the Denver DMA. No other location has been identified to date that will provide equivalent or acceptable coverage. Despite this fact, JeffCo, with the broadcasters' nod of approval, has explicitly prohibited digital television transmissions from existing towers of over 50 years duration through zoning ordinance changes within the past decade, even though those existing towers are termed ‘legal’. The effort by KWGN to appeal of this zoning ordinance was unsuccessful. It should be noted that the JeffCo zoning ordinance effectively prohibits DTV for the majority of Colorado residents, far overreaching the bounds of Jefferson County. It also prohibits the stations from operating within the bounds of their FCC license.

Many of the Denver stations anticipate the construction of a new tower on Lookout Mountain prior to their implementation of DTV. In view of the predisposition of JeffCo against DTV, the approval of the new tower plan is uncertain. To depend upon this new tower as a precursor to DTV in Denver will only stall DTV for at least several more years regardless of the outcome, and yet those same stations have existing towers on Lookout Mountain. Only in Denver are the stations with existing towers being allowed to continue to delay the implementation of DTV without consequence. The zoning ordinance that prohibits DTV transmissions represents a substantial and self-inflicted obstacle for broadcasters and requires FCC intervention and resolution.

In summary: it is necessary, and in the best interest of the Denver DMA residents, to bring closure to the Denver situation through FCC direct intervention and involvement. In order to bring DTV to the Denver DMA, the anti-DTV zoning restrictions must be rectified, and the DTV mandate with the Denver stations need enforcement in parity with the other stations around our country.

tige07

08-12-02, 10:09 AM

Hello,

Is there a Denver HDTV status FAQ online? If not, could someone please post a URL link to a post that details the current status?

I am interested in getting HDTV before the football season and I live in Highlands Ranch (near Broadway and C-470).

Thanks for any help!

tige07

wabisabi

08-12-02, 11:33 AM

No offense taken. However, given the fact that coverage for Squaw is spotty and the FCC actually requires the stations to maintain 95% (or maybe it's 90%) of their analog coverage area Squaw is probably not viable even from the FCC point of view (much less the station point of view).

I think that in the 5th or 6th order, the FCC rescinded this requirement. They basically said that they want the stations to replicate their existing NTSC coverage, but that if they don't that is fine as well. The caveat being that the stations will lose protection for the areas that they do not cover with DTV that they did cover with analog.

They also said that KDVR is broadcasting full power from atop Lookout.

When KDVR started broadcasting DTV, the power level that the FCC allowed them is their current power level. Since that time, the FCC has allowed the UHF DTV stations in the Denver area to broadcast at 1,000kW. The power level that they were previously allowed to broadcast at was 'downgraded' due to their HAAT (height above average terrain).

. But it had to be fair - it's been on the books for 9 years and their brain trust agrees with it. So, my question is - do the stations individually have an alternate plan to use their existing towers and (if so) when would that be implemented?

The broadcasters were partners in the zoning resolution changes that took place in 1993. They were fully aware that the "same service" provision would not allow them to broadcast HDTV (they did not know if it would be digital or analog then...) from their existing legal non-conforming towers. [if you don't believe it, just listen to the tapes from the hearings in 1993 when the change was made.] The reason the broadcasters agreed to this is that Jefferson County was considering amortizing the non-conforming towers.

-Wabisabi

Geof

08-12-02, 11:48 AM

Mark,
I think your letter hits on the problems here in Denver but I believe you could strengthen the part where you're asking for FCC action. I do not believe they can or will do anything about JeffCo zoning - but they might be able to clarify the "same service" issue (although I am unsure if their interpretation means JeffCo must follow it). I tend to agree with Mark that the FCC isn't likely to do much until the LCG2 app is approved or rejected, but they might be able to force the stations to start to consider alternatives now should the plan be rejected (and for all we know this may already be happening?).

tige07,
Welcome to the forum. There is no FAQ or site. Feel free to ask questions here as we're all in the same boat as you. The situation isn't pretty. To answer your questions:

-> KDVR is broadcasting 1/3 full power from Lookout. They do not broadcast any HDTV and basically upconvert their analog signal and broadcast it digitally on CH 32.

->KMGH is broadcasting a very low power signal from an antenna on top of their downtown building. It's extremely difficult to receive.

->KCNC and KRMA are broadcasting a low power signal from an antenna on top of the Republic Plaza (also a downtown building). These are much easier to receive than the KMGH signal but not everyone can receive these signals.

KUSA has flatly stated they will not do any low power broadcasting and will wait until a "final solution" is reached.

-> KWGN was denied a permit to install the necessary digital equipment on their existing analog tower. Jefferson County refused the permit because, in their eyes, digital TV is not the same service as analog TV. KWGN is now working with JeffCo in the hopes they can get approval to install a 1/2 power setup. We are waiting in "fingers crossed" mode to hear if this will be approved.

->KRMA has an application in progress in Jeffco for a new facility on Mt. Morrison. This is still in the JeffCo Planning commission and hopefully a recommendation will be made by them sometime in Sept. After they recommend approval or rejection the application will go to the Jefferson County Commissioners who have the final say. I have not heard any timeline for this decision but suspect it will be late this year or early next year before the case is decided. You can find the details of this application here (http://www.mtmorrisontower.org/).

-> The "Lake Cedar Group" (LCG) stations (Channels 4, 6, 7, 9, & 20) have filed a second application to share a common broadcast tower on Lookout Mountain (the first application was rejected by JeffCo several years ago). The new application was recently submitted to JeffCo and as such no decision will be made until that process is complete, which likely means it will be late next year before any decision is made. If approved then construction will also take about a year so it will be late '04 before any of these stations get on the air full power-wise (that is an optimistic - best case - estimate). You can find out more about the LCG proposal here (http://www.lakecedargroup.com/).

Wabisabi,
I recall the FCC changing the coverage area requirement but do not believe they eliminated them - are you sure of that? Many stations are not running at full power [yet] so levying coverage are requirement on them at this time would not be realistic.....

As to KDVR, They are licensed to 1000 KW but the last I was told (by their chief Engineer) was that they were running something less than 400 KW. I do not believe this is as high as it will ever get - I think part of the reason for lower power levels is due to NTSC interference concerns .

wabisabi

08-12-02, 12:57 PM

Geof,

From the FCC Report & Order (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.pdf) ,

Additionally, while full replication by DTV licensees of the NTSC service area was an important Commission objective in developing the DTV Table of Allotments and remains a key goal, we will not impose a full replication requirement. Instead, we have determined that, after December 31, 2004, whatever portion of a commercial broadcaster’s NTSC Grade B contour is not replicated with its digital television signal will simply cease to be protected in the Table of Allotments. We believe that this will provide broadcasters with the incentive to continue service to most of their current viewers without the need for a Commission rule. We will, however, impose a city-grade service obligation that will require licensees to encompass their communities of license with a stronger signal than that with which they had, or will have, to commence DTV operations.

-Wabisabi

Mgibsoj

08-12-02, 01:01 PM

Thanks for the comments, and I agree 100%. I tried to get into the 'same service' explaination in the letter, but everytime I began to delve into details of the zoning, I got the immediate urge to put on my fishing boots. Asking the FCC to intervene also kept bringing the song to mind "Please come to Denver, she said no...." Certainly wabisabi's info is a golden nugget - the third paragraph should be modified to begin with:

While the FCC has been proactive in taking steps to ensure the switch to DTV, it is documented that the Lookout Mountain broadcasters in conjuction with the Jefferson County Government (JeffCo) has been proactive in prohibiting the transmission of DTV from their towers on Lookout Mountain.

The first sentence of the last paragraph now ends with "through FCC direct intervention and involvement".

On the KDVR content (the only DTV I currently can receive, that's why I know...), the FOX Widescreen from the networks is truly widescreen, but in a 4:3 frame which needs stretched to full screen to correct the aspect ratio. The 4:3 network ads have the FOX logo outside the 4:3 frame. All local origin stuff (Seinfeld, Simpsons, daytime, news, ads) has the aspect ratio stretched to 14:9, then shrunk to 4:3. The aspect ratio should never be modified to something that the viewer cannot fix - hope this doesn't happen during NFL games!

Geof

08-12-02, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by wabisabi
Geof,

From the FCC Report & Order (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.pdf) ,

-Wabisabi Thanks for the info. I am mildly surprised by that but after thinking about it realized it probably doesn't mean much. No broadcaster is going to go forth and willingly give up viewers - that can have a direct impact on advertising revenue I believe. So, I guess that means Squaw could be considered an alternative as far as the FCC is concerned, and possibly even the stations if they are willing to abandon viewers. Abandoning viewers seems as likely as abandoning Lookout so we're back in the same old push come to shove scenario.

Mgibsoj

08-13-02, 10:59 AM

Checking in on KDVR last night, I see they were back to analog network on 32. Hit and miss, I suppose, possibly depends on who's working the controls. Well my letter to the FCC should be good for some grins, anyway. I did some mods, but I think it was a lost cause from the start. I'll send it along anyway, if only just for grins.

Jetlag

08-14-02, 10:02 AM

OK, finally something a bit lighter. In the following article, the CORN GROWERS Association has come out against the DTV mandate! LINK (http://www.tvinsite.com/broadcastingcable/index.asp?layout=story&doc_id=98298&display=breakingNews)
My only concern is the groups that could possibly follow; beet growers, sheep shearers, dung shovelers, etc. I especially like the part where the Pres of the organization doesn't understand the issue, yet his organization is against it! :p

dr_mal

08-14-02, 02:27 PM

Jetlag: thanks! That was truly funny. Unlike ScareCO, at least he ADMITS he doesn't understand the issue.

NBC will be broadcasting an Elvis flick in HD on Saturday -- I asked Colorado's "leader" how to pick up the signal. I bet I get an automated reply:

To: kusa@9news.com
From: dmaloney@frii.com
Subject:

>From NBC.com:

"Loving You
On the 25th Anniversary of Elvis Presley's death, NBC is proud to broadcast the
digitally remastered version of his second movie, Loving You. The
autobiographical film, which depicts Elvis's real-life ascent to fame, features
some of his best performances and will be presented in high-definition
television (HDTV).TVPG"

Just wondering what channel to tune to in Denver to see this movie in HDTV. I
can get KCNC in HDTV, but haven't been able to receive your HD signal yet. Any
tips?

Thanks,

-David

Geof

08-14-02, 02:57 PM

A possible reply:

David,
Thanks for your interest in "Loving You". Unfortunately you will have to sign up for a Canadian DBS service to view this program in HD because we (Colorado's News Leader) have decided to completely ignore the FCC and all local area digital broadcast enthusiasts by not investing in any H/DTV capability at this time. Instead, we have elected to direct our HDTV funds into our news organization so we can remain Colorado's News Leader. We apologize for this relatively minor inconvenience yet we invite you to tune into our nightly programming (and in particular our award winning news). We're sure you'll discover that our programming is so superior to other local programming that it does not require High Definition broadcasting.

wahlin

08-14-02, 03:36 PM

Does anybody know when KDVR is going to broadcast in 480p on ch 32? It seems like they stopped doing this months ago.

Hot

08-14-02, 03:49 PM

I just sent this email to the KUSA Station Manager:

KUSA
Station Manager

Dear Sir,

How do I get to watch "Loving You" on Saturday in High Definition as announced by NBC. I have a HDTV set with an ATSC HDTV receiver. What channel do I tune to to receive KUSA-DT?

I am able to get CBS HDTV on KCNC-DT, channel 35; ABC HDTV on KMGH-DT, channel 17 and PBS HDTV on KRMA-DT, channel 18, but have not been able to find NBC HDTV anywhere.

You call yourselves Colorado's News Leader but you are LAST in HDTV. NBC has also announced more HDTV series this fall. How will we see them in Denver?

If DISH Network adds a National NBC HDTV feed, will you grant me a waiver to see it since you have done nothing to bring NBC HDTV to the Denver area. Do not tell me about Jefferson County and your antenna problems. The other stations have overcome those problems to get HDTV on the air. You have done nothing.

I always watched 9News at 10 but am now watching KCNC-DT, channel 35 after the CBS HDTV shows.

Please let me know what you are planning to do to get NBC HDTV to Denver viewers.

DP1

08-14-02, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by wahlin
Does anybody know when KDVR is going to broadcast in 480p on ch 32? It seems like they stopped doing this months ago.

I'm not sure whats going on with them. I think they are broadcasting the Network 480p signal it's just that the format is all jacked up. Like I've said, when a show thats supposed to be in 480p widescreen is broadcast, if I set my Dish 6000 to "Stretch" mode it actually looks about right with just the FO showing in the lower right and with people looking in proper perspective as well as the PQ being pretty good. As good as I remember it looking when they were doing it right anyway.

One example was Fox News Sunday which is a Network 480p show. When in Stretch it seemed to me to be a fine looking 16x9 broadcast and then during local commercial insertion as you would expect it was 14:9 with small black bars on the sides and worse looking. If I dont put it in Stretch mode then that program and everything else (shows and commercials) is some freaky looking "everything tall and skinny squished in on the sides" deal.

It's just that with so many STB's (or HDTV's) the end user isnt able to manipulate the image on anything output in HD (anything above 480i) mode. For example I cant watch it "right" on my other tuner, the Mitsu SR-HD5.

Maybe whatever they use to monitor the signal is set to Stretch on their end so they think they're sending it out properly. ;)

Geof

08-14-02, 05:20 PM

I like your letter Hot....Keep 'em going guys....

wahlin

08-15-02, 01:19 PM

Dan,
Are you actually receiving KDVR in 480P? My panny indicates 480i.
Thanks

DP1

08-15-02, 02:11 PM

Thats a good question and now that you mention it Im sure it is 480i because on a Dish 6000 (which doesnt indicate signal type specificaly) when they were doing 480p a number of stretch, crop, zoom modes when tuned to that channel in HD mode were unavailable and all we could think that caused it was it being a 480p signal. Now though when finding out what I mentioned earlier in going through the modes to get to stretch, all of the other modes are now available too. Which logically would mean it's not 480p anymore. So I'm not really sure then why on the what are supposed to be the widescreen shows, that it seems like it is the widescreen feed (if you stretch it) but that it's 480i.

I guess what I'm saying is I would have thought that they went hand in hand. Maybe I'm just whacko and seeing things cause afterall I dont watch alot of the channel anyway, but are you seeing on shows that are supposed to be widescreen that everything is tall and skinny whereas the usual 4x3 stuff isn't (if I stretch that it looks fat of course)? Presuming thats the case it must mean that they're still passing through the widescreen material but just that their deinterlacer or upconverter..whatever you want to call it, is whats still messed up. And while my 6000 can account for the geometry part of the equation I wasnt accounting for the native resolution since the 6000 cant do 480p natively anyway.. it's upconverted to 1080i regardless.

dr_mal

08-15-02, 02:27 PM

I get the same thing Dan sees -- the "widescreen" network signal on KDVR is being broadcast as anamorphic 4:3 and needs to be stretched by my receiver. The DTC100 (AFAIK) doesn't indicate whether it's 480i, 480p, or whatever. Just that it's being broadcast 4:3 instead of 16:9.

wahlin

08-15-02, 04:19 PM

Last spring I was getting 480P on the panny and then lost sound and noticed that they were now broadcasting in 480i. I definitely noticed a slightly degraded picture on the fox news at 9. Finally got sound again a few months ago, but noticed they are still broadcasting in 480i. One thing I noticed when watching the x-files in widescreen at 480p last spring was that they were not quite getting the aspect ratio right. The fox logo was sometimes slightly cutoff and the picture never filled the screen. There was a dark colored bar on one side of the picture. I think I noticed this on their news broadcasts too.

Mgibsoj

08-15-02, 06:38 PM

I don't think that they ever got their 480p working right, or if they did, it was only operational for a short time before going to 480i and shrink wrapping it to 4:3. During the Super Bowl, the screen studder on 480p made it unwatchable for me, and the audio was ahead of the pic by about a quarter to half second. At least with the current situation, it's watchable when they're not doing the 14:9 bit. Hopefully they do step up to 480p and scrap the shrink wrapped 14:9 analog stretch. Maybe they do the 480i 4:3 stuff to make their digital signal compatible with their translator in Ft. Collins? Just a guess...

Hey, how about all the other broadcasters doing a DTV translator in Ft. Collins?!?? (Kidding, of course, and, okay, I'll sheepishly sit down now).

mknoebel

08-18-02, 08:17 PM

Not really Denver tower related, but Colorado HD related (I also posted this in the HD programming section):

Sunday's Denver Post has an article that says that the Colorado State/UCLA football game on September 7 has been selected for a new-technology test market. Basically, they are going to broadcast the game in high definition in movie theaters in the Denver area and also one in LA.

Sounds like a great idea to promote the game as well as HDTV. Ironic considering the LACK of HD effort in this state...:rolleyes:

Here's a link:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E87%257E803410,00.html?search=filter

santellavision

08-18-02, 10:48 PM

Fox Sports is producing the game in High-Def?
Wait, first Fox is totally opposed to anything above 480p,
then they produce the game in Hi-Def...

I just read an article where they said, they didn't want to produce
sports in Hi-Def because the technology wouldn't let them put
on a quality product (Not enough Hi-Def cameras available, No Hi-Def Slo-mo and Graphics systems aren't fully there yet etc.)

What kind of idiots are running Fox?

mknoebel

08-19-02, 12:38 AM

Ernie,

It's Fox Sports Net, Kinda like when the Avs are in HD as well as Fox Sports Rocky Mountain. Mark Cuban and HDNet are producing it and it sounds like it will be shown on HDNet as well as in the theaters.

See this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1284671#post1284671

Geof

08-19-02, 11:50 AM

Did KUSA ever answer the Loving You email???

dr_mal

08-19-02, 11:53 AM

Nope. Look at me -- I'm so surprised I can hardly stand it. :rolleyes:

Geof

08-19-02, 01:16 PM

But hey, 9News cares so I guess it doesn't matter if Channel 9 cares...:(

Thankfully we won't have to watch them tonight to see Terrell's farewell....

Hot

08-19-02, 02:06 PM

I never got a response from KUSA --9News Does Not Care---

JohnJr

08-20-02, 07:20 PM

The program "American Family" will be fed in HD on Wednesday, 8/21 at 19:00 (MT).

The frequency will be on (RX-IF=1379).

This program will be broadcast on KRMA DT 18.

-John

DP1

08-20-02, 08:25 PM

I saw where some of the WB's HD programming starts around the 18th of next month. Waiting to hear from Don on any updates for KWGN's temp solution.

Phil T

08-20-02, 09:36 PM

Hi all!

Long time lurker.

How come I cannot get KRMA-DT tonight?

I have a Dish 6000 with the 8VSB. I get a signal between 90-100 and then it drops out. No picture or sound at all.

KCNC-DT 35 and KDVR-DT 32 are fine.

Is this a format the 6000 cannot decode?

Thanks

santellavision

08-21-02, 10:30 AM

Hi Phil!
Welcome to the forum. The 6000 receives all formats and either passes it native or reformats it to your output setting. (Through the menu, you can choose 1080i or 720p)
But KRMA is good 'ol 1080i and comes in fine.

Location and antenna are a factor. If you get KCNC, you should get KRMA fine. But there have been occasions where moving your antenna a couple of inches either way makes all the difference. It's the low-power thing.

Dasher

08-21-02, 01:26 PM

Hello Phil T. (and all members!),

I too am a long time lurker that finally registered.

I have only had HDTV capability for about a month, using a roof-mounted UHF pointed downtown.

Yesterday I had my Mits tuned to KRMA-DT and I was in another room at approximately 3:30 PM when I heard the system fall silent. I checked in on the set and it indicated that there was no signal available. When I went to bed last night it was still off the air. Perhaps this is what you were referring to?

Did anyone else lose the KRMA-DT signal last night? I was concerned that there was a problem with the new TV, but reading Phil T's post maybe KRMA-DT was actually off the air. If so, it is the first time I have seen it off since I have had HDTV capability (7/27/2002).

BTW - I get solid signals from KMGH-DT, KRMA-DT, KDVR-DT, and KCNC-DT with just the roof-top antenna. Since I am using the built-in OTA tuner in the TV, I am unable to get an actual number reading on the signal strength (I assume that those who post strength readings are using STBs that provide that function?).

Brian

wabisabi

08-21-02, 01:26 PM

I just got off the phone with Jeffco, and asked if the comment period for LCG was closed. They said it was, so I asked the general nature of some of the comments. Before they could respond, I clarified and asked if there were any "good" (meaning thoughtful and well-reasoned) comments raised. The response was basically that it was too early to tell, but that some comments addressed the lack of conformity of the ODP written restrictions and the narrative proposal. For example, all descriptions of the plan say they will use directional antennas, but this is not required under the ODP. Also, all the visual simulations show one smallish building, but the ODP says they can have multiple buildings, and that the size of them is not clear.

So... I decided to check this out myself.

From the LCG website, Project Summary (http://www.lakecedargroup.com/summary.html);

Enhanced Building Design: The new building is designed to be recessed into the hill and to blend into the surrounding environment. The building is over 7,000 square feet smaller than the 1997 proposal, and nearly 60% of it will be below grade.

From the LCG website, Proposed Restrictions (http://www.lakecedargroup.com/restrictions.html)

Equipment Building. One or more equipment buildings may be constructed, operated, and maintained in Land Use Area A provided the following limitations and standards are met:

The total square footage of floor space above ground for all equipment buildings shall not exceed 25,500XX.

From this, it seems as though they could build several transmitter buildings, with a total of 62,500 square feet (25,000 = above ground = 40% of the total).

Next, I checked out the directional antennas.

Again, from the LCG website, Project Summary;

Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions: The proposal complies with all County and Federal RF standards. The new directional antennas, along with the location of the tower on the easterly portion of the Lake Cedar property greatly improve the radio frequency emission environment in the area.

From the LCG Website, Proposed Regulations;

Antennas. Antennas shall be allowed in Land Use Area A provided they meet one or more of the following criteria:

Attached to the Tower and meeting the criteria set forth in Section 6.a above.

Attached to an Accessory Tower and meeting the criteria set forth in Section 6.b above.

Attached to the Equipment Building, located behind screening material, and in accordance with Section 6.d above.

Located behind natural or man made screening sufficient to obscure the visibility of them from off of the properties located to the east property and setback from all property lines by at least 50’.

There shall be no more than six (6) ground-mounted satellite dishes. Said dishes shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet in diameter or xx’ and height and shall be painted to match the colors of the surrounding environment.

There shall be no more than xx ground-mounted weather radar antennas. Said antennas shall not exceed xx’ in diameter or xx’ and height and shall be painted to match the colors of the surrounding environment,

No mention of the antennas needing to be directional at all.

I think the LCG needs to make sure this proposal is consistent with what they have been telling everybody that they will do.

-Wabisabi

(just my opinion...I could be wrong)

donyoop

08-21-02, 02:20 PM

Did anyone else lose the KRMA-DT signal last night?

Hello Phil & Dasher,

I also noticed that KRMA-DT was not present last night. Normally I get KRMA-DT at 88 signal strength here in Thornton and that has not changed this summer from last winter.

I wasn't all that concerned because it happens occasionally and also the Rockies were on HDNet last night. The picture quality was outstanding. It might not be such a long season after all if the Rox win a few more games before August 30.

Don

Geof

08-21-02, 02:25 PM

I think the LCG needs to make sure this proposal is consistent with what they have been telling everybody that they will do.Agreed. Good post. When I read the updated pages on the LCG site I noticed some inconsistencies as well. I do not know the submissions format (if any) for the proposal so wasn't sure if this was acceptable or not. However, it does indicate that perhaps there wasn't the level of effort in dotting the i's and crossing the t's that we would hope and expect to see. Hopefully they can address these inconsistencies and "get it right" during their "rebuttal" period...I hope they are all treating this like it's their last best hope because that's exactly what it is (for Lookout at least)...

As an aside, I went for a drive up to the top of Mt Evans last weekend. Along the way I passed the Mt Morrison, Lookout, and Squaw sites. Obviously the Mt Morrison and Lookout towers stand out and are noticeable from C470 but that Squaw site is really set back to the West (comparatively speaking). The Squaw site is very observable along portions of the the Squaw Pass drive but gee this site is well "behind" (from a Front Range perspective) Bergen Park and quite a ways into the mountains. It is clear that it's quite a bit higher in elevation than even Morrison but it is quite a bit further West. The view from Mt Evans (on a clear day at least) puts all 3 sites into perspective. If anyone wonders about Squaw take a drive up Mt Evans (which now costs 10 bucks!).

santellavision

08-21-02, 04:27 PM

I really love the fact that ScareCo only supports Squaw. What a bunch of cr*p! After my little 'chat' with the City/Mountain Rag, All they kept saying was "CARE will never give in to Morrison or Lookout... Ever. RF is bad, bad, bad... the residents... the children... no one should be near towers... Blah, Blah, Blah. But, Squaw is perfect and we would support that."

Nice! I've been up to Squaw, what about all the families who live up near there? They don't count? In (S)CareCo's mind they don't... because they aren't in Jeff County.

wabisabi

08-21-02, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by santellavision
I really love the fact that ScareCo only supports Squaw.

I think they also can't see (I mean supported) Eldorado.

-Wabisabi

Phil T

08-21-02, 10:39 PM

Dasher,

KRMA is back to normal tonight.

What part of Littleton are you in?

I am in Columbine Hills (near Chatfield res.) and cannot get a lock on KMGH-DT.

KCNC-DT and KRMA-DT are fine.

I am using a roof mounted Radio Shack $20.00 antenna.

I am following the discussion here on the Jeffco tower situation. Maybe with the recent FCC mandates on tuners and low power we will see some kind of action from the stations. (yeah right)

I saw this on another forum today:

http://www.industryclick.com/microsites/index.asp?srid=11154&pageid=4776&siteid=15&magazineid=158&srtype=1#full

Still no mention of Denver!

JohnJr

08-22-02, 12:04 PM

Another KRMA-DT Heads Up

The program NOVA "Cracking the Code of Life" will be fed in HD on Tuesday, 8/27 at 18:00 & 21:00 (MT).
This program is 2 hours in length.

The frequency will be on (RX-IF=1379).

It will be broadcast on KRMA DT-18.

-John

Dasher

08-22-02, 12:58 PM

Phil - I am within a mile or two of you. I am in Stony Creek and fortunate enough to be at a high elevation in the neighborhood. I also have the cheapo UHF antenna mounted on a 15 foot mast on top of my two-story house.

Last night a buddy of mine was over who works for the company that provided most of KMGH's digital equipment and he was quite surprised to see that I had a solid lock on the signal. In fact his comment was "so you are one of the 13 people who get KMGH-DT."

Also, I know that the situation at KUSA is old news, but I thought that I would mention that two weeks back I sent an email to the Director of Engineering at KUSA:

I was quite surprised that within a couple of hours he had already responded. unfortunately it was with a canned answer indicating what the long range plans were:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your note. If will go to "9news.com" and look for the HDTV button that will take you to information about our joint proposal to Jefferson County for a HDTV facility. We will need their approval to build this facility. Any start date will be determined by the success of this latest submission to JEFF CO. Again, thank you for your interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since his answer did not really address their short term plans, I tried again:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your kind and prompt response.

The information that you directed me to is specific to the long range plan for KUSA-DT broadcasting at full power, but unfortunately does not address your plan for the 11/2002 "Special Temporary Authority" start date mandated as a result of the FCC's 5/16/02 action.

I assume that you will have a low power setup broadcasting from somewhere near your downtime facility until the permanent tower fixture is constructed, similar to the digital signals currently being broadcast by some of your competitors in Denver. Can you please let me know what that location will be, and whether the actual start date will be the mandated 11/24/2002 date or sooner?
------------------------------------------------------------------

That was ten days ago and still I have not heard back from him. Obviously they are very nonchalant about the fact the they do not intend to do anything by the date that the FCC has directed them to meet.

Brian

Dasher

08-22-02, 01:01 PM

I somehow managed to leave out my initial email text in the last post:

--------------------------------------
Sir,
As an owner of a digital HDTV television, I see with some excitement on the FCC's web site that KUSA-DT channel 16 is scheduled to be broadcasting by this November. Can you please provide the details regarding specific start date, broadcast location, and broadcast power, so that I may prepare my antenna arrangement in advance of the start?
--------------------------------------

Sorry - forum newbie fiddling with the controls!

Brian

Geof

08-22-02, 01:36 PM

Obviously they are very nonchalant about the fact the they do not intend to do anything by the date that the FCC has directed them to meet.
That's being kind. They have remained fairly consistent about not wanting to implement a partial solution that only serves a portion of their viewers (or some such crap) for quite awhile now. Evidently they have rationalized that it's better to serve no one then it is to serve a few. These are not folks you'd want to go to war with.....

That said I am circling back to the thought that we need to mass mail the FCC insisting they do something to try and expedite a temporary solution for all the stations It sure seems like there ought to be a way to get some sort of temporary low power setups going on Lookout. As I think we all understand, the absolute best case scenario means we won't see anything for at least 2 more years. In 2 years 95% of the county will be digitized. We are really going to be in the minority. If the FCC put some weight behind their dealings with the stations (for example, by not merely rubber stamping extension requests for the next two years) and sat down with them and JeffCo could not some sort of agreement be arranged that would allow the stations temporary use of some tower, somewhere, to locate a low power setup for all LCG stations until the matter is finally resolved? I find it hard to fathom (I know, I am dense) that some sort of temporary arrangement cannot be made that gets these stations going from Lookout.

JMartinko

08-22-02, 02:23 PM

Geof
I think I agree with your feelings that the only avenue left to us is to pressure the FCC to push for low power STA's from anywhere for KUSA and KMGH etc. It is pretty obvious to me that nothing we can do will put pressure on Jeffco, and obviously KUSA and KMGH to a lesser degree, don't care about us either. The LCG is only interested in hearing from us when they need someone to show up at a hearing to speak on their behalf.

I frankly do not understand how KUSA in particular has been allowed to get away with their attitude on full power on Lookout or nothing. All that being said, every time I think of writing more letters to the FCC, I think about the results of my last letter writing campaign with them. As I recall, I don't think I even got a reply or an acknowledgment in the form of a form letter, much less a personal acknowledgment from anyone.

BTW, welcome to PhilT and Dasher, just wish we had some good news here that you could use. I don't know how long you have been 'lurking', but I can assure you, there are more than several years of pent up frustration residing in some of the members here. Personally, I have pretty much reached my limit of patience and have just given up. I have found other sources of the various networks available to me, and have reached the same conclusion as KUSA--"Call me when things are full power off of Lookout". This whole thing really stinks big time.

BTW Geof, congratulations to you fellows at LMart for the successful launch of the Atlas V yesterday. Here's hoping those of us in Boulder will be building something to fly on one of them real soon.

dr_mal

08-22-02, 02:57 PM

Sent to mpowell@fcc.gov a couple of minutes ago:

Subject: DTV tardiness in Denver

Chairman Powell,

I'm writing you today to express my disgust with the attitude some Denver network stations are taking towards the DTV transition.

As I'm sure you're aware, Denver is one of the top 30 DMAs in the nation. Therefore, the "big 4" networks were required to have transitioned to DTV by November 1999. Not only have some stations not met that target, they have completely ignored the May 2002 deadline for all commercial stations to have transitioned to DTV.

The stations will tell you they have been delayed by the backward-thinking Jefferson County, which is where the analog transmission towers are located, and which is the preferred site for broadcasting digitally. However, the local PBS (KRMA), CBS (KCNC), and ABC (KMGH) affiliates have found ways to broadcast low power signals from downtown Denver and reach some viewers. The local NBC (KUSA) station, however, continues to flagrantly ignore the FCC's directives and the needs of the community. KMGH's signal has a confirmed reach of 13 or so DTV-equipped households, while KCNC and KRMA are readily available through a good portion of the Denver metro area.

The Lake Cedar Group, which is a consortium of 5 stations in Denver (KCNC, KRMA, KMGH, KUSA, and KTVD [UPN]), has a pending application for a new analog and digital transmittal tower with Jefferson County. At best speed, this application will not be approved and tower built for at least 18 months. According to the FCC's web site, the Denver stations have exemptions until November of this year to be broadcasting. It is clear at this point that they will not.

I respectfully request that the FCC intervene and help moderate an agreement between Jefferson County and the Lake Cedar Group that will allow Denver to fully experience the DTV transition this year. I also request that you consider sanctions against KUSA for not even attempting to make the transition, thumbing their nose at their viewers and the FCC by using other parties as an excuse to not be in compliance with your mandates. Come on, if our PBS station can be on the air, surely NBC could find a way.

I thank you for your attention in this matter.

David Maloney
[home address]
[home phone number]
[e-mail address]

----------------

not holding my breath for action or a reply, though :(

Geof

08-22-02, 03:17 PM

Dr_Mal - Excellent. Just friggin excellent.....

I will get off my butt and send something as well.
I suggest you also snail mail that to KUSA and the FCC director of Media relations....

How about it guys - let's all take one more crack at this.......

dr_mal

08-22-02, 03:35 PM

Director of Media Relations would be David Fiske (dfiske@fcc.gov?)

Snail mail address is:

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

dr_mal

08-22-02, 04:45 PM

New KCNC General Manager Walt DeHaven has a feedback form set up:

http://news4colorado.com/askthegm/

I think it would be nice if we thanked him for the only major network HDTV offerings in Denver and encouraged him to keep it up.

(man, I must have had my Wheaties this morning :))

dr_mal

08-22-02, 04:53 PM

Whoa - I got a reply already:

From: xxxxxxxxxx@cbs.com

Thank you for your support-let me see what I can do.
Walt DeHaven

>From David Maloney
Email Address dmaloney@xxxx.xxx
About NEWS4 General Management

Hello, and welcome to KCNC.

I used to be a loyal KUSA news-watcher, but their attitude towards HDTV has
led me to your doorstep. I enjoy watching your primetime HDTV offerings
every night from my house in Brighton.

The one thing I miss from KUSA is that they have little Celsius numbers
beside the Farenheit numbers in their weather forecasts. Being Canadian,
the Celsius numbers help me understand the weather more.

It's a little thing, but it's the little things that make good stations
great.

Thanks!

-David Maloney

----------------------

Still waiting for my reply from KUSA about how to see that Elvis flick from last weekend in HDTV...

JMartinko

08-22-02, 05:17 PM

dr_mal
Nice work with your letter, maybe I too will try to get something off before I begin hibernation for the upcoming football season.

I would recommend everyone here flooding Powells office and email with letters, but I do think it will be more effective if everyone tries to be original in your letters and not just copy a form from the thread. It will create the impression of a spontaneous uprising rather than an organized letter writing group.

I think it is most important to specifically recommend that KUSA not have their DTV license extended beyond November along with monetary sanctions unless they get an STA on the air, and also that KMGH be required to increase their coverage area in order to keep their DTV license. In addition, be sure to recommend the FCC get DIRECTLY involved in the negotiations rather than watch from the sidelines as they have so far.

JMartinko

08-22-02, 05:28 PM

Just in case some of you missed this thread, there is a great thread with a lengthy (and great) article about the HDNet production facilities out at Stapleton. Check out the thread and the articles referenced in it. Be sure to check out the photo page referenced later in the thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163940

This might be a great place for a group meeting if anyone has any contacts to get us in??????

Geof

08-22-02, 06:15 PM

Here's another hack at my letter.....I will continue to refine this a bit and then send it along....

I’m writing with the desperate hope that the FCC will do what is necessary to ensure compliance to the digital television mandate in Denver. As you may know we have a problem here - A BIG PROBLEM. So far just ONE of our stations (KDVR – Fox) is broadcasting more than just a few digital kilowatts of power. Three stations (KRMA, KCNC, and KMGH) are broadcasting very low power signals from downtown Denver buildings and the rest (notably KUSA, KTVD, and KWGN) are nowhere in sight. I have been following the progress of these stations towards their migration to digital and, to be blunt, the situation is pretty pathetic with no solution in sight. All of these television stations analog facilities are located in Jefferson County (where the plains end and the mountains begin in the Denver area). All of these stations wish to stay put – to stay more or less in the same geographic area (Lookout Mountain/Mt. Morrison area) with their digital transmitters. Our stations claim there are no other suitable sites while the local Lookout Mountain residents claim otherwise. This is where push has come to shove. The stations have been butting heads with Jefferson County and with the Lookout Mountain residents who are well organized and well funded and known as “Canyon Area Residents for the Environment (CARE). Unfortunately the actions of these (relatively) few residents have had far ranging implications for the much larger population of residents within the Denver DMA. Likewise, the actions of Jefferson County affect millions of residents living within the Denver DMA but whose borders lie outside of Jefferson County. Unfortunately, the vast majority of residents affected by the digital tower related decisions of Jefferson County cannot vote for these county officials because we do not reside in Jefferson County. In essence we are being held hostage, and we need your help.

It appears that our local television stations would like their viewers and the FCC to believe that their digital problems rest solely at the doorsteps of Jefferson County. To some extent this is true:
· It is true that Jefferson County denied a poorly conceived and deficient zoning request to permit the “Lake Cedar Group” (LCG) stations (KCNC, KRMA, KMGH, KUSA, KTVD) to build a common broadcast tower on Lookout Mountain.
· It is true that Jefferson County denied a similarly poorly conceived zoning change request to transform Eldorado Mountain into a broadcasting mecca.
· It is true that Jefferson County denied KCNC permission to broadcast a low power digital television signal from an antenna tower on their Lookout Mountain property because that tower had not been used for television within the last six months.
· It is true that Jefferson County denied a KWGN application to permit them to install a digital antenna on their tower that also contains their NTSC antenna because somehow digital TV is not the “same service” as analog TV.

However, here is the “rest of the story”:
· The first LCG application was incomplete and did not meet all of the county requirements documented in the Jefferson County “Telecommunications Land Use Plan”. Looking back, one cannot help but wonder if the LCG even wanted this application to succeed.
· The LCG filed an arguably frivolous lawsuit against Jefferson County after they denied their first application. This lawsuit was subsequently dropped many months later as the court date drew near. This lawsuit could be construed as a cleverly disguised attempt to do nothing because the (then) pending lawsuit effectively blocked talks between the county officials and the stations.
· The LCG asked the FCC to preempt the Jefferson County ruling knowing full well that if this course of action were taken it would spend years in the courts before any final resolution was determined.
· The LCG stations waited almost two years between denial of their first application and submission of their second application – why the two year foot dragging???
· KUSA has flatly refused to do anything digital. They have publicly stated they have absolutely no intentions of implementing a low power setup and will not do anything until a full power facility is approved and built.
· The LCG stations have refused to acknowledge whether they have a fallback plan should Jefferson County deny their second application.

Currently this is what our future may hold:
· BEST Case scenario: Given past experience it will take more than a year for Jefferson County to process the second LCG application and arrive at a ruling. If the application is then approved it will take another year or so for construction to be completed. There will be no full power digital signals from the majority of our stations until late 2004 or beyond. Denver (market 19) will be one of the very last markets to implement digital. Sadly, this is a BEST CASE situation!
· It is a virtual certainty that the CARE group will appeal any decision favorable to the LCG. Thus, even if Jefferson County approves the second LCG application subsequent legal wrangling may delay construction and significantly impact the availability of high power digital signals. While difficult to estimate the impact of an appeal it seems plausible this could result in one year delay. Should that transpire it will be late 2005 or early 2006 before we begin to get full power signals. It was hoped the transition would be complete by 2006 yet we here in the Denver DMA may very well just be getting started by then.
· If Jefferson County denies the second application what then? Must we endure yet another two year period between applications and then another two year period for the application to be approved and construction completed before any broadcasts could begin? That would make it 2007 or 2008 before we see digital TV in Denver.
· KUSA (NBC) will likely continue to be “Colorado’s News Leader” because they can funnel money into their news department while other stations invest in their digital infrastructures. Meanwhile we will see no NBC H/DTV because KUSA refuses to do anything.

What I think we need:
· Immediate and direct involvement from the FCC. The stations are very quiet on their plans and are unwilling to discuss fallback plans and “what-if scenarios” as if they were state secrets. We (local citizens) do not have the clout or authority to get to the bottom of the situation. There are many of us who question whether they have been acting in “good faith” in attempting to secure the necessary permits. Indeed it appears as if they have done an admirable job of giving lip service to residents and pulling the wool over FCC “watchdog” eyes. Without some sort of strict oversight and involvement from the FCC their efforts will likely lead to continued delays. Colorado citizens should expect and demand more - we clearly need FCC intervention and help.
· Develop an alternate (fallback) plan in the event that the second LCG application is also denied. Placing all their eggs in one basket and hoping that Jefferson County will approve "plan B" is very risky given the track record thus far. Alternate plans must be devised now to allow the stations to proceed to "Plan C" in an expeditious manner should "plan B" be rejected.
· Deny any further extensions to stations that have made no effort to begin digital broadcasts. You gave them the spectrum for free – our spectrum. Some have refused to use it. Fine, let them refuse, but either take back the spectrum or make them pay to keep it if they refuse to use it under the terms of the "original agreement". In this case KUSA is well behind and should be significantly penalized. Notably, our PBS station (KRMA) managed to get of the air with an STA, well ahead of schedule no less, why should a commercial station get a free ride? Similarly, KTVD and KWGN are also late in meeting their May ’02 deadline.
· Count KMGH as a non-complying station. Sure they’re broadcasting a very low power signal from an antenna atop their studio but their audience is limited to something like 13 lucky folks at last count. Big whoopee.
· The stations, along with the FCC, should negotiate with Jefferson County to try and arrive at some sort of interim solution that gets our stations on the air in some capacity, now. The low power broadcasts from downtown are effective for many Denver area residents but this audience could be greatly expanded if they could transmit (even low power signals) from Lookout Mountain, or Mt Morrison, or Eldorado. The alternative, for many residents, is to keep waiting another 2 years (and probably longer) or subscribe to a gray market Canadian DBS service to receive American Network HDTV (which many are doing).

In summary, I believe that the FCC must become deeply involved in this problem to help resolve the current standoff. At a minimum we will be waiting another year before it will even be known if the second LCG application is approved. Then, if we’re fortunate, we’ll wait another year for construction to be completed. Worse yet, we could be waiting many years if Jefferson County denies the second LCG application. This situation would be laughable if it weren’t so downright sad.

NOTE: Revised again on Friday Morning....

JMartinko

08-23-02, 10:38 AM

Geof
Great letter. I will mail you some comments in a PM.

Folks.
I got an update from Pete McNally this morning on the LCG application. So I won't misquote, here is the basic item.

"As an FYI, we are 'penciled in' for hearing dates before the planning commission on November 13 and December 4, 2002. All the 'referral comments' from the HOA's and various agencies have been received with no new issues or surprises. We get the staff's official review comments on September 3 and will be responding to all of them shortly thereafter."

Thanks to Pete for the update. Like Geof's letter states, folks we are looking at late 2004 in the earliest before we have a chance for HD. I think the letters to the FCC is a great idea at this point.

Geof

08-23-02, 11:29 AM

Thanks jm.
I incorporated your comments and revised the letter. It's getting pretty close to complete (I hope).

donyoop

08-23-02, 02:18 PM

How about it guys - let's all take one more crack at this.......

All right, it's time. Time to exit this state of hopeless frustration (at least temporarily) and join you all in sending a letter to Chairman Powell. Given the minimum 2+ years to full power, it's time for 9News (doesn't care) to reconsider their low power strategy and for KMGH to cover north metro as well as south.

When we were at KCNC for the LCG presentation, didn't the 9 and/or 7 guy say something about re-considering low power about now if there were significant delays in the LCG II app?

Also, I believe that the LCG II app will not be approved. It may have a chance if the FCC with Congress support gets involved. This is really uncertain until after November since no congressional candidates will want to touch this one with a ten foot pole. It is interesting in that the new congressional district spans Golden, Arvada, Westminster, Northglenn, and Thornton.

I'll get my letter out this weekend.

Don

Geof

08-23-02, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by donyoop

All right, it's time. Time to exit this state of hopeless frustration (at least temporarily) and join you all in sending a letter to Chairman Powell.......

.....Also, I believe that the LCG II app will not be approved.

Don I don't know if the letters will do any good but sitting around and doing nothing more than complaining about the situation will certainly accomplish nothing. If we don't do anything now we may very well be second guessing ourselves down the road. These letters certainly don't have to be as long-winded as mine. Any sort of letter asking for help will be better than no letter at all and who wants to be saying coulda/woulda/shoulda next year if JeffCo rejects LCG2 and then we're facing a 2006 or 2007 start date. As it is I am very leary of LCG2 being approved and the stations should not, no must not, wait until then to figure out what to do next. Personally I tend to believe there must be some sort of temporary accommodation that can be arranged that will provide some relief until the final solution is achieved but again that ain't gonna happen if we don't raise a stink.

JohnJr

08-23-02, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by wabisabi
I just got off the phone with Jeffco, and asked if the comment period for LCG was closed. They said it was, so I asked the general nature of some of the comments. Before they could respond, I clarified and asked if there were any "good" (meaning thoughtful and well-reasoned) comments raised. The response was basically that it was too early to tell, but that some comments addressed the lack of conformity of the ODP written restrictions and the narrative proposal. For example, all descriptions of the plan say they will use directional antennas, but this is not required under the ODP. Also, all the visual simulations show one smallish building, but the ODP says they can have multiple buildings, and that the size of them is not clear.

So... I decided to check this out myself.

(...wabisabi)

I don't know about ya'll but this scares the everlovin chit out of me. Wabisabi, while extremely smart and informed on this stuff, certainly isn't a full time legal beagle, and yet he finds huge inconsistencies like this in the LCG2 app?! Give me a break! I have NO DOUBT that it will be denied.

Could we ask the LCG2 guy to please explain these inconsistencies to us? Can we ask him if he has read this thread and seen wabisabi's post? Can we ask him what he plans to do about this? An explanation of any sort?

-John

EDIT:

Rereading jm's comments above, maybe this is what is going to happen September 3rd when LCG2 reviews the official comments. But darn it, wabisabi's comments are worth an immediate response. One way or the other.

Geof

08-24-02, 10:50 AM

JohnJr said,
I don't know about ya'll but this scares the everlovin chit out of me. Wabisabi, while extremely smart and informed on this stuff, certainly isn't a full time legal beagle, and yet he finds huge inconsistencies like this in the LCG2 app?! Give me a break! I have NO DOUBT that it will be denied. An excellent reason why we need a massive letter writing campaign to the FCC. They can't hurt and may very well help.....

I sent off my email to Chairman Powell today and also sent snail mail to the following addresses:

Federal Communications Commission
Office of Media Relations

ATTN: David Fiske
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

KMGH-TV
ATTN: General Manager
123 Speer Boulevard
Denver, Colorado 80203-3417

KUSA
ATTN: General Manager
500 Speer Blvd.
Denver, CO 80203

Lew Black

08-24-02, 02:10 PM

You are too far to the south to get 17.1. I have a customer (I work at ListenUp in Denver) on a hill just south of Arapahoe and Parker--Chenango. Even with a high gain UHF antenna he can't get it. He gets full strength on CBS and PBS. It may also be that the channel 7 studio is down in a hole at Lincoln and Speer. That isn't much above the Platte. Bottom line is they are tough to receive from the suburbs.

I live on a hill south of Orchard and Holly and have trouble getting 17.1 without breakup despite a high gain antenna on the roof. Lew Black

DennisMileHi

08-26-02, 02:19 PM

For those of you (very few, indeed) that have noticed lip sync problems on ABC 17.2, I sent the following email to their technicalquestions email address. I will post any reply I get. One previous email went unanswered:

Dear Sirs:

I have written before about this. Your HD signal on 17.2 has had a very big lip sync problem for some time now (I would guess at least 0.5 seconds off) that is making your HD channel absolutely unwatchable. The picture may be good, but sound has to follow!!

I spent considerable money and lots of time putting up a large YAGI antenna on my roof JUST to get your signal. The other three stations come in fine at my house with just a simple indoor UHF antenna. I live just SW of CC state park.

So, can you PLEASE fix the problem? Does anybody monitor the signal? I know that you have few viewers because of your low signal, but if you are going to bother at all, how about making it a good one? I have an RCA DTC100 tuner if that makes any difference.

I would appreciate a reply and I would be happy to help you with feedback to the right person, if you would like.

Thanks in advance and I look forward to the fall HD programming with NO lip sync sound problems!

Sincerely,

Dennis Rich

JMartinko

08-26-02, 04:29 PM

Hey guys, just some 'after the weekend thoughts' about the letters to the FCC that some are writing in support of some temporary solution while we wait for the approval of the long term solution.

Whatever recommendations you make about STA's and low power stations for the FCC to push, it probably is a good idea to be sure to state that you do support the new application submitted by the LCG for the combined stations on the single tower on Lookout (assuming you do support it of course). I do think this is the best long term solution for the area, and would not want our letter writing campaign to infer to the FCC that we do not think it is a good idea in the long run to have a single tower on Lookout. I believe the issue with the LCG application is not whether it is good idea, but whether it can realistically be implemented in anything under 2 or 3 years. I think Geof's letter (for example) stated clearly that even if the LCG application is approved, it is likely that (S)CARE will take it to court and delay things again, but I don't think we want to give the FCC the impression that we would support (S)CARE in that attempt to block the full power tower.

I would also think that we should include the LCG group and/or Pete McNally with a copy of any of the letters that we send to the FCC, Jeffco, and to any of the stations, since the LCG (not the individual stations) may be formally asked to answer some of the concerns and questions we raise in our letters. I am sure you can get addresses from the LCG web site if you don't have them.

That's just my Monday $0.02 worth on the idea of letter writing.

Geof

08-26-02, 09:19 PM

I can send Pete a copy of my letter. I did not specifically support the 2nd LCG app in my letter and maybe I should have but it's too late now. Nonetheless I don't believe I gave any impression that I am not in favor of it. I do, however, have extreme reservations that it will pass. The inconsistencies pointed out so well by Wabisabi coupled with the whole ScareCO mentality makes me very very leery. I absolutely believe the LCG should be working on plan C, which, understandably, must be kept in confidence to avoid undermining plan B. I may not be the favorite guy in LCG circles but neither did I create the mess they are in. In my mind I see at least a 2 1/2 to 3 year timeframe before any permanent solution comes to fruition. How long should we be willing to wait? Should we just accept this mess, move on and hope for the best? Doesn't it seem plausible that if the FCC "invites" JeffCo officials to Washington to discuss the matter something might not happen? What if they "invited" KUSA's Roger Odgen? Do you think he would tell Powell to go pound sand?

I think the stations should (at least) implement a temporary solution and must be held accountable. Whether the stations like it or not the cost of staying in business is to convert to digital. The FCC set a timetable for this - they did not say, "it's okay whenever you get around to it". At a minimum I think the FCC should address why it's ok for some stations to ignore the mandate. It continues to amaze me that KRMA gets on the air years early and the so called news leader refuses to do anything.

I encourage everyone to write the FCC and let your voice be heard. I'm not sure a couple of letters will mean much but obviously more is better. I also think times have changed since our last letter writing campaign. The FCC appears to be "toughening up" in the last few months and given our uncertain future I remain convinced they need to get involved (as do we). If, next year at this time JeffCo denies LCG2 we will be in real deep do-do and I don't think sitting around hoping for the best is very productive.....Hopefully there will be more here who agree with those of us who have already written our letters and will write letters of their own.

HDJello

08-27-02, 11:59 AM

Here is my letter, which in addition to Chairman Powell will go to David Fiske, the Lake Cedar group, and others that may be suggested here:

Dear Chairman Powell,

I am writing this letter to communicate my frustration with the lack of Digital Television services in the Denver Colorado Designated Market Area. I recently moved to Boulder, Colorado from the Santa Cruz, California area. Although Santa Cruz is culturally in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is in the Salinas/Monterrey DMA and as such not Digital Television service was available at the time I left (since all stations there missed the May 1, 2002 deadline). I had previously lived in the San Francisco DMA and enjoyed high quality Digital Television on most of the channels. All the digital television equipment was useless in Santa Cruz, and as part of the relocation I was looking forward to being in a larger DMA that had long passed its conversion deadlines.

I was surprised and disappointed to learn that only one of the stations in the DMA (KDVR) was broadcasting from permanent facilities and it was doing so at 1/3 power. Since this is a FOX network station no High Definition programming is available, as Fox does not broadcast in High Definition. A couple of the stations, KCNC (CBS), KRMA (PBS), and KMGH (ABC) have low-power (in the case of KMGH extremely low-power) temporary set-ups from their downtown studios, but these are inadequate for me due to my situation and distance from these stations. Some stations (notably KUSA, the NBC affiliate) have done nothing. They have not procured any DTV equipment and have not gained any technical expertise in Digital Television broadcasting, so even when some transmission solution is found they will be extremely slow in coming on-line. Even the stations on at low power (with the exception of KRMA which is aggressively pursuing multiple options) seem to be content with the delays that allow them spend far less on power now during the transition period.

Upon investigation of the situation, I learned that most of the stations put all of their digital eggs in a single basket. An organization called the Lake Cedar Group, comprised of several stations, was planning to build a consolidated DTV transmission facility on Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County; near where the current NTSC broadcast towers are located. They have run into a small but very vocal group of opposition, an organization called Canyon Area Residents for the Environment (CARE), who claim that all of the towers on Lookout Mountain must be removed, and that it really doesn’t matter in the long run because “everybody” gets their television from either cable or satellite anyway. They would be willing to have the towers put in someone else’s backyard, but they want them out of theirs. All of the alternative locations would require special considerations, such as being too close to other stations further west and possible interference in the Table Mountain quiet zone. As a newcomer, it appears that CARE would like to see some kind of “windfall” increase in property values by removing broadcast towers, even though they have been there far longer than most of the residents.

Recently, Lake Cedar Group has submitted a new proposal to Jefferson County for review. While I am not an expert on zoning issues, it appears to address many of the objections of the previous proposal that was denied a few years ago, including setbacks, safety, NEIR levels, and so forth. As part of the proposal at least three existing towers would be removed (possibly more could be removed in the future), ground-level radiation would be reduced to below the FCC thresholds for safety. The building space would largely be below ground and designed to blend into the background. Utility connections would also be below ground where possible. In spite of all of these advantages CARE is still mounting a campaign against the proposal, as it does not fit their “remove all of the towers” goal and once approved, the result would be conforming and their goal of removing all the towers would be dashed. To me, the proposal provided by Lake Cedar Group seems to be at least a “reasonable” attempt to get something that meets the “stated in writing” goals of the Jefferson County Telecommunications Plan. I would hope that the county would work with the broadcasters to improve the proposal as necessary to fully meet the county goals, rather than just accept it or reject it with no guidelines as to what it would take to get it approval. With this in mind, I basically support the Lake Cedar Group proposal.

I fear that at this point the approval process will be slow and this small minority of people will again prevail at the county level, by threatening to unseat elected officials over this single issue. They have been successful with this approach in the past, and so I expect they be successful this time also, though I hope that will not be the case. In the best case with approval, completion of construction and actual broadcasting from the facility is still a few years away. If it were rejected, then it would be far longer for a full conversion in the Denver DMA. Although I live within the Denver DMA, I do not happen to live in Jefferson County and so my voice does not count with the elected officials there.

I believe that this situation is serious, and that in order for Digital Television to be available in the Denver DMA several steps need to be taken:

The FCC should admonish stations that have not done anything towards the digital transition. Eventually they should be find and forced to return the extra spectrum they have not used.
Stations on the air with low power need to find ways to boost that power, even from the temporary location. I do not claim to be an expert in transmission and don’t know the ramifications of increasing the power, but, as an example, KMGH can only be received by a very few (1-2 dozen) DTV-equipped homes. The other low-power stations have much broader reach, so I am presuming they are using at least some more power. I would hope the FCC would encourage this, and rapidly approve modifications to the ‘STA’s that may be necessary to allow it.
The FCC must get involved in the land-use process. I am not suggesting outright preemption at this time (but if the interests of a few continue to impact the millions of people in the Denver DMA, then I may end up in favor of such action). For now, I suggest the FCC mediate the issues between the broadcasters and the land-use planning organization in Jefferson County. This approach may be unprecedented, but something is needed now. In particular, the following goals might make sense:
1. Securing permission to build “less than full power” facilities on the current broadcast towers. This would allow the stations to deploy equipment that would transition to full power sooner.
2. Obtaining an expedited review process of the new Lake Cedar Group application, so that it will be this year rather than next before a long term solution is found.
3. Listen to the legitimate concerns of local residents and see that the final project meets those needs, while filtering out the NIMBY histrionics that want to seek the removal of all broadcast towers from Lookout Mountain, which would seem very unlikely to happen anyway.
I would hope the FCC could take a leadership role in making this happen, securing the cooperation from state and local officials as needed to make it happen.
The FCC needs to come up with reasonable must-carry guidelines for DTV signals. The cable providers resist this, but the availability of DTV signals over this medium would help the transition in this area even while the broadcast issues are being sorted out. The satellite issues are clearly harder due to bandwidth constraints, but something is needed there also. This item is clearly not limited to the Denver DMA, but we would benefit greatly by some action in this area, including urging the “do nothing” stations to do something to be included in the must-carry provisions.
In summary, the situation in the Denver DMA regarding digital television conversion is bad and little appears to be happening to improve it. I therefore ask that the FCC take actions, possibly including those I suggested above, and help make the DTV transition in Denver become a reality.

Geof

08-27-02, 01:46 PM

Nice letter HDJello - in particular, I think you made some excellent points and recommendations.

Lew Black

08-27-02, 02:21 PM

Some good news folks. I just got off the phone with Les Jensen, head engineer at channel 2. He told me they got their permit for a 450 Kilowatt digital transmitter on Look Out Mountain. Apparently they did a great job on their application. They will start building this winter. Lew Black

Geof

08-27-02, 02:27 PM

Yipee!!!!

DP1

08-27-02, 02:48 PM

Well that KWGN news probably ties in somewhat then with what has been listed in other threads in regards to which WB affiliates around the country are slated for HD debut in the upcoming weeks/months.

The emails from people at Tribune have KWGN penciled in for April. Pretty much last or next to last on the timeframe list of stations. Which is no surprise of course to those of us that live here.

Good to hear anyway though. And if nothing else perhaps the shows will be able to be seen in re-run next summer when there isnt much else to watch since I'd have already caught the programs I will have wanted to watch in the upcoming season on the the other Networks by then.

Lew Black

08-27-02, 03:13 PM

What I find interesting is that they managed to get approval from Jefferson County. Most of us had been sure that they would approve nothing, no matter how well planned and reasonable. What does this say about LCG and our low opinion of the Jefferson County Commisioners?

If I get any updates or responses from the other stations I will post them. Lew

Geof

08-27-02, 03:28 PM

What does this say about LCG and our low opinion of the Jefferson County Commisioners? The Commissioners probably had nothing to do with this decision. I'd guess it was the planning folks who approved this because it was within existing rules and they had authority. Perhaps Wabisabi or KWGN-DT (Don) could clarify.

While this is certainly good news I would suspect (S)CARE will fight this (for whatever it is worth). Again this is good news but I don't think it changes anything with the LCG app - I still hope folks write letters to the FCC. If the FCC can put pressure on JeffCo to speed up the application approval process ("fast track" it if you will), or come to some temporary low power solution on Lookout/Morrison/etc., or pressure KUSA into implementing a low power STA, that will benefit a lot of folks.

JMartinko

08-27-02, 04:27 PM

KWGN
Great news from the KWGN front. I think Geof is probably correct in assuming that the Commissioners had nothing to do with the approval, but I would like to hear from Wabisabi or someone who knows for sure. I am a bit surprised by the slow timetable for the construction though. Sometimes I am left with the impression that the local stations never knew there would be a transition to DTV if it weren't for the AVS forum. Come on guys, couldn't some of this gear been on order and the construction teams lined up already????? I can't wait to hear the whining (especially from "Colorado's Leader' KUSA) when the LCG tower is finally approved and they claim it will take at least another year for them to get the equipment on order for their own HD set up. I sure hope the LCG will have equipment lined up, the tower pieces waiting in a warehouse, and the trucks sitting in a parking lot ready to begin construction on the day the application is approved. I think the people of Denver deserve nothing less, and I will be furious if they are not prepared to 'hit the ground running'.

HDJello
Great letter to the FCC and great points. As you point out, I think the Denver market will really start to stick out like a sore thumb as people from smaller markets who may have already had HD available are transferred here. Given the obvious fact that it will be at least 2-3 years before the LCG tower can be approved, (S)CARE law suits settled, and construction completed I think it is imperative that the FCC be made aware of this fact and be pressured to step in and force some interim solutions on Jeffco and the stations. I would encourage all of the members to get letters off to the FCC (with cc's to the LCG, Jeffco, the stations, and anyone else you think will help). Although I do not hold out a lot of hope it will get much action, it is literally our only possible coarse of action at this time. It will easily be next year before we can show up at a hearing in front of the Jeffco Commissioners to show our support for the LCG application. Until then, writing the FCC is about it. Keep it up guys. (Yes, I am working on a letter myself, just very busy lately and don't have it finished.)

Lew Black

08-27-02, 04:47 PM

jm, I think you are unreasonable to expect these stations to have the gear lined up when they have no idea where, when, or if, it will be used. They are businesses, after all.

Last fall, when KCNC started plans for Republic Plaza (and this project was a national priority as the station is network owned) the project was delayed while they waited for new and better electronics to come in. It was worth the delay and improved their upconversion of regular broadcasts. If they had bought the gear a year earlier it would not only have tied up money with no return on investment, it would have been inferior to what they ended up using. They also have to go through construction design and bids. Until a location is approved they can only do so much.

Don Perez at channel 9 just told me that the KWGN antenna will be a small one, 20 ft or so, and effectively is low power. I would like to hear from someone at KWGN on this and the effective range. I would imagine even a low powered antenna in the right location will hit most of the metro area. Lew

JMartinko

08-27-02, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Lew Black
jm, I think you are unreasonable to expect these stations to have the gear lined up when they have no idea where, when, or if, it will be used. They are businesses, after all.

Lew

Lew

I respectfully disagree with you. The major networks (KUSA et. al.) are already more than two years late to meet their mandated dates, and KWGN I believe had the deadline of last May. I am sorry, this is not a surprise that they are supposed to be on the air. Sure they can get better equipment if they wait, that is why KUSA hasn't done a da*n thing so far. They will get better equipment, and likely get it for a cheaper cost than their competitors like KCNC had to pay, and then will again use the new high tech gear to proclaim themselves "Colorado's Leader" when they get on the air, while the other stations like KCNC who invested in the gear when they were legally supposed to will not have as good equipment. The only equipment which might have to be returned might be the tower girders themselves, if the location changed and a different size or shape tower was required. The rest of the gear could be used at any location (for example, KUSA could set up a temporary transmitter on the Republic Building as their competition has done). I am really tired of hearing the sob stories about how hard it is to get this equipment and have it ready to go. The stations are already behind every other city in the top 30 market, and have virtually no prospect of being on line full power within the next two years. The stations (collectively) were the ones who requested to convert to digital. They have known this was coming since 1997. I have ZERO patience for them. Sorry, that is just the way I feel.

"They are business's after all"
So are Enron, Global Crossing, Qwest etc.

As for the time to get quotes for construction etc., you can easily get those quotes based upon the design in your application while waiting for approval. Given a tentative approval date, you can even schedule the construction trucks etc. If you need to change something in the quote you do that. Otherwise you can literally be 'ready to go' when the application is approved. These people owe this effort to the people of Colorado, since they have (in various degrees) gotten a 'free ride' at our expense for several years. Will they be willing to reimburse me for the cost of my C-Band dish and multiple receivers I have had to buy in order to watch alternative sources of HD. I doubt it. So no, I do NOT feel sorry for them if they have to invest in some equipment and then leave it sit a few weeks. Most of it can be used in a low power temporary station, as KRMA and KCNC have done.

Lew Black

08-27-02, 05:16 PM

Are you equating KUSA with Enron etc.? Lew

JMartinko

08-27-02, 05:27 PM

I am simply saying that Corporations can make the books tell you anything. In some cases like Enron, what they claim is illegal, in other cases, like KUSA it may only be self serving to cover their butts with the FCC. I don't believe everything I am told just because it came from a corporation or station. I think what we are seeing is at its best an example of poor planning (and with that statement I am being as kind as possible). With the threat of a major FCC fine hanging over their heads, I wouldn't expect KUSA or the other stations to just come out and say they have no intention of spending a dime on anything until after they have Jeffco approval, even though that may indeed be their policy. Such a statement could easily get them fined by the FCC.

Now you see why I don't post a lot lately, I have lost patience with this entire effort and especially with some of the total BS we are given by many of the parties involved (and that includes Jeffco, (S)CARE, etc.):mad:

I will go crawl back into my cave so as not to upset the apple cart.

HDJello

08-27-02, 05:46 PM

I sent many of my letter copies (pretty much as posted earlier), particularly to the stations and LCG, electronically. I got a response from Walt De Haven, GM of KCNC, thanking me for "sharing this thoughtful correspondence".

wabisabi

08-27-02, 06:17 PM

Don Perez at channel 9 just told me that the KWGN antenna will be a small one, 20 ft or so, and effectively is low power. I would like to hear from someone at KWGN on this and the effective range. I would imagine even a low powered antenna in the right location will hit most of the metro area.

In order for the KWGN antenna to be approved, (because of the legal, non-conforming status of the tower) it had to be less than 25 feet tall, and 8 inches in diameter. It is this size restriction that there is the power restriction, basically an antenna this size can only handle so much power.

To be fair, Ch 9 tried this same type of thing (adding a DTV antenna to a tower less than 200 feet tall) a couple years ago. Unfortunately for them, they tried to put their DTV antenna on their radar tower, which meant Jeffco had to determine the status of this tower. What Jeffco discovered was that the tower was built after the zoning was in place, and that no approvals for this tower had been issued. So, the radar tower was not a legal, non-conforming tower but rather an illegal tower. The permit was denied, and Ch 9 was issued a zoning violation for the tower. I think the whole matter is still in the courts. ( Ch 9 claims that they sought Jeffco approval and were told they could just build the tower, no permits were needed.)

-Wabisabi

Geof

08-27-02, 06:43 PM

And that whole Ch 9 radar tower is still a major sore point with JeffCo and (S)CARE. Just goes to show you that they'll do what they want when it benefits them. Obviously Ch 9 sees no benefit in HDTV or they'd already be on the air, legally or maybe not so legally like their radar tower. With the exception of the antenna and transmitter I agree with jm.....they're going to need most all the other equipment at some point in time. Waiting may get them the latest and greatest gear, which may cost less than earlier generation gear, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't think the FCC said they could convert "whenever they felt like it"...The FCC established transition dates a long time ago and lets face it, a low power solution IS a 100% doable option right now that KUSA has refused to implement. IMO they should be heavily fined for not doing so.

DP1

08-27-02, 07:02 PM

Yeah, they're not stupid. They realize they get far more web hits from having that doppler radar on their website than they'd get viewers to a digital OTA signal. ;)

Geof

08-27-02, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by DP1
Yeah, they're not stupid. They realize they get far more web hits from having that doppler radar on their website than they'd get viewers to a digital OTA signal. ;) Dan, that's 100% correct, (even if you did mean it an a flippant manner). The double doppler radar is something they can advertise to all their viewers and use to help keep them as Colorado's News Leader (yuck). I guess from a business perspective it makes sense to get the radar up, even if might not be quite legal, and ignore FCC mandates that only bring in a few viewers (after all what are a few "technicalities" here and there - they are the media after all). This decision should be heavily scrutinized by the FCC.

DP1

08-27-02, 07:23 PM

Yuck is right. Thats why I used the web reference rather than the tie in to watching it during their newscasts. I use the website alot on and off during the day (especially while in our pray for rain mode) but never watch their tv signal. Not on mere principle because of their "attitude" towards HD really, as much as the fact that they're the only 1 of say the Big 5 (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, Fox) that I cant view worth spit because I have no means (nor desire) to get a decent VHF signal. All my tv viewing comes from UHF only antennas for OTA (optimized for 4 digital signals), or DBS (with no locals subscription). I'm not about to change my setup for their one token channel.

No, I realize they couldnt care less about me or even a 1000 like me and thats ok. And because of that, when I say that they wont get me back as a viewer until they make a digital signal available, it's not a "threat" if you will.. but simply a promise so to speak.

JMartinko

08-30-02, 11:06 AM

Speaking of web pages, does anyone here think it would be a good idea (and more importantly volunteer to create and host it) to have a Denver area viewers DTV web page? I am thinking of something which could give someone the current DTV status of each of the local stations, as well as reference links to some of the important players. Very often here in the forum we get a newbie question about what is the status of the Denver stations and have to reference them to the 300 pages of postings we have generated over the years. The web page could be a one stop shopping summary with links to the stations(?), Jeffco and their addresses(?), (S)CARE(?), the FCC pages and addresses(?), the LCG page(?), and of course, most importantly, the AVS Forum and our particular thread. For example, someone preparing a complaint to the FCC could go to this page and get all of the addresses necessary to mail the letter as well as where to send copies. We could also provide information as to the status of the Colorado Springs and Cheyenne stations, and satellite sources of HD networks shows for people who just don't want to wait another 3-4 years to watch DTV.

As people move into town in the next few years from other areas, and are wondering how to get DTV stations (as they no doubt have been doing in their previous market), they are likely to do a web search to find out the status of things here in town. If the page shows up in web search engines and people find out about the lack of DTV, we could perhaps begin to increase our numbers and thus the support to put pressure on the parties involved. I am constantly discouraged by the fact that it seems we have only about 30-50 enthusiasts here. When we try to put pressure on the stations, the LCG, the FCC, or Jeffco, we are basically considered as to small in number to be of a serious concern. Witness the KUSA attitude toward us, which is basically that they could care less about the few of us who are DTV capable. It would seem that at least as important as getting letters to the FCC at this point, we need to do something to increase our numbers and hence our visibility.

Is this a hair-brained idea, or does anyone think there is any merit here? (BTW, for the record, it would not be my first hair-brained idea if that is what it really is).
:confused:

wahlin

08-30-02, 05:12 PM

Went to the Broncos game last night and it seems like the three big Mitsubishi video displays they have around the park are widescreen HDTVs. Does anyone know if this is the case?

JMartinko

08-30-02, 05:28 PM

wahlin
I raised that question last year, and I think the consensus was that the screens are indeed 16-9 and the cameras used are widescreen, but the number of lamps was not quite enough to provide HD resolution. They are incredibly clear screens though, and especially when you compare them to the old 'Mile High' screen.

On the subject of where Denver stands in the top 30 markets, here is the latest information.

TOP TEN MARKET NETWORK AFFILIATES

THERE ARE 40 OF THESE STATIONS. 36 HAVE CONSTRUCTED THEIR LICENSED DTV FACILITIES. 38 ARE ON THE AIR (36 WITH LICENSED FACILITIES AND 2 WITH STAS) WNBC-DT AND WABC-DT WERE LICENSED AND ON THE AIR PRIOR TO 9/11/01 BUT ARE NOW OFF THE AIR DUE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. TWO OTHER STATIONS HAVE BEEN GRANTED UNTIL 11/24/02 TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION BY COMMISSION ACTION.

MARKETS 11 - 30 - NETWORK AFFILIATES

THERE ARE 79 OF THESE STATIONS. 68 HAVE CONSTRUCTED THEIR LICENSED DTV FACILITIES. 75 ARE ON THE AIR (68 WITH LICENSED FACILITIES AND 7 WITH STAs) SEVEN STATIONS HAVE BEEN GRANTED UNTIL 11/24/02 TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION BY COMMISSION ACTION.

Details of the 10-30 market can be found at
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/files/dtvstat11.html

You will see that in the top 30 Denver and Hartford Ct. are the only cities not on the air. Obviously NYC is still trying to trying to get back up from the WTC disaster. Does anyone here think that the LCG stations "complete construction" by 11/24/02??? Only three stations do not at least have low power STA's on the air. It is interesting to see things from the national perspective.

Mozart

09-01-02, 04:27 PM

QUOTE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of web pages, does anyone here think it would be a good idea (and more importantly volunteer to create and host it) to have a Denver area viewers HDTV web page?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JM in Boulder has a great idea and I hope a web site can be set up. Too few retailers of hdtv equipment in denver and the public at large is aware that this fall the number of hours of hdtv programming will increase greatly.Perhaps, this will encourage the 'big 4" denver stations will be broadcasting the national hd feeds.We can hope so! A web site in tandem with the AVS forum might give the broadcasters some feed back and the public much needed information.

markdl

09-02-02, 12:21 PM

At the end of last May, I lost the ability to pick up 17-1 and 17-2. Well, apparently, something in the atmosphere, or trees, or whatever has shifted because last night for the first time since May I got a strong enough signal from 17 to get a lock. Just barely, but it's there again. So, there are 14 of us again.

santellavision

09-02-02, 12:47 PM

I'd be happy to put together a Denver DTV website for us. Let's start brainstorming some info we'd like to see. Without paying for a domain like (denverdtv.com) i could just host it on my server space for free.

-Current Status of Stations
-Links to all parties (LCG, (S)Care, etc)
-JeffCo Public Meeting dates

dr_mal

09-02-02, 12:58 PM

- Link to this thread (duh :))
- contact info at the stations? "If you see technical problems on 35-1, e-mail David Layne at ...."

santellavision

09-03-02, 06:03 PM

I found some time today to create a Denver DTV Website

Denver DTV Website (http://www.santellaproductions.com/dtv/denverdtv.htm)

It's rough, but's it's a start. All the pages aren't up yet, i'll get to them soon.

Email me some info & Links we think should be on there.

Geof

09-03-02, 06:16 PM

Very impressive start Ernie....wow....!!

dr_mal

09-03-02, 06:33 PM

Great stuff!

I don't think KCNC uses kcnc.com, though. kcncnews4.com and new4colorado.com both work.

As mentioned above, links to:

LCG: http://www.lakecedargroup.com
sCARE: http://www.c-a-r-e.org/
This thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28456

at a minimum should be included.

How about some sample letters to the FCC? Point-by-point rebuttal to anything sCARE posts? A map showing approximate coverage by the low power solutions?

JMartinko

09-03-02, 06:59 PM

Ernie

:D :D
Great Job

Here I was wondering if anyone thought it was worth it, and you already have a page up. Way to go!!!!

When you get the time, I would expand the details on the stations on air situation to include information which would be helpful to a DTV newbie in the area. What I had in mind is stuff like:

KMGH: Available only within a mile or so (?) of the studio

KUSA: Publicly announced they have no intention of getting on the air in any fashion-low power or otherwise- until/unless the LCG application is approved

KRMA/KCNC: Visible for about 20 (?) miles from downtown if you are not blocked by land or buildings. More signal strength in the south Denver area and southern suburbs.

KWGN: Low power transmitter from Lookout has been approved and construction may begin this fall with a spring OTA estimate. Still a strong possibility a (S)CARE law suit (Do we have the courtesy to call the CARE on the web page???) will delay this low power transmitter even further.

Obviously the FRONT page should have a link to the AVS forum as the place to get the absolute latest information and online help. I would also put a MAJOR HEADLINE inviting people to contact the parties involved in order to express their demands that the local stations get on the air ASAP.

We also must generate letter writing information page, with the Jeffco Commissioner's names and addresses, as well as the station manager's names and addresses. The places to send complaints to the FCC should be included as well.

As for your comment about getting a domain name, I agree it is beyond our realm to pay for it, but if we get a decent page up an it looks good, I could talk to a contact at Listen Up or perhaps other places locally to see if they might be willing to sponsor the page and pay the domain fee if people think that is a good idea. I would sure want to know that a sponsor would not try to edit the content though.

Great job, this is a much better response than I envisioned, but I think it could be a valuable tool for the forum group.

JohnJr

09-03-02, 07:03 PM

(haven't looked at the page so far... but)

I think a link to this post in the HDTV Programming forum would be good. It's about Fall 2002 HDTV content. Both over the air and alternative distributions.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164671

Also, if we can come up with it (can't recall if we have posted it before) a map of the front range including where Lookout, El Dorado, Squaw and Morrison are. (I'll come up with this if it isn't handy somewhere).

Also, a small timeline of events as most recently referenced in a letter Geof wrote to someone. He had a nice small timeline of events in that letter.

A link to JeffCO.

I think Deb Carny has her own site. A link to that may be appropriate too.

A "Coming Events" section where if we do any more tours, have any more group meetings, we can post it there. I too would be interested in the HDNet Tour. I am actually in that area pretty often servicing Denver Television and Internet (Denver Channel 8) and could stop by the office there and see if I can arrange something.

I still have an archive of prior parts of this thread (0, 1 & 2) or something like that on my ftp server. ftp://ftp.computerroom.com/denver_hdtv_tower.zip

-John

JohnJr

09-03-02, 07:21 PM

Hahaha, Ernie... you beat me too that link about the fall 2002 schedule.

Looks great! I will try and put some stuff together on my suggestions and email it to you.

-John

JMartinko

09-03-02, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by JohnJr

A "Coming Events" section where if we do any more tours, have any more group meetings, we can post it there. I too would be interested in the HDNet Tour. I am actually in that area pretty often servicing Denver Television and Internet (Denver Channel 8) and could stop by the office there and see if I can arrange something.

-John

JohnJr
I dropped an email to someone who should be in charge (I think??) of tours of HDNet at the end of last week to see if I could set something up. If I don't hear back soon I will let you know and maybe we can co-ordinate our efforts to set it up. I am assuming they will do such a tour, although their site and the information I have does not indicate they give tours.

HDJello

09-04-02, 11:02 AM

Ernie, the web page is outstanding. Thanks for your efforts.

santellavision

09-04-02, 11:30 AM

Thanks Everybody for the feedback!

If we could find a sponsor, i've found a host company that would give us a domain name and storage for about $20./mo - not bad. Also, should i include some of the sample FCC letters we all wrote a while back?

P.S. Am i correct on the status of the 2 apps? Anybody got the latest info?

DP1

09-04-02, 12:05 PM

In our FWIW dept, KTVD submitted a request for another 6 month extention the other day (doesnt appear any other metro area stations have yet). Heres part of that text which followed background info (talked about LCG resubmitting and the upcoming November and December hearings):

The Planning Commission will issue a recommendation following the
hearings. Once that recommendation has been issued, hearings will be held before the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. At the conclusion of those hearings, the Board of County Commissioners will issue a decision regarding the LCG application. A decision is anticipated in early 2003. Assuming that the Board of County Commissioners approves the rezoning application, LCG will immediately file for the necessary permits, and will commence contracting for construction of the transmitter building and tower. LCG will also purchase the antennas, combiners and other parts of the transmission and ancillary equipment, and arrange for their
installation.

LCG has been advised that the transmission tower and required extra heavy guy cables must be specially fabricated because of the heavy load the tower must bear and that the design, fabrication and erection thereof (without considering the effect of any adverse weather) will take at least one year. It is anticipated that the construction of the transmitter building and the acquisition of all other necessary equipment will be completed within the time it will take to complete the tower component. It is therefore anticipated that, under the schedule outlined above, KTVD will commence operations in 2004.

HDJello

09-04-02, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by santellavision
P.S. Am i correct on the status of the 2 apps? Anybody got the latest info?

Lake Cedar Group Application 02-111694 RZ, Case Worker Steve Brown, sbrown@co.jefferson.co.us

First possible Planning Commission hearing dates: November 13 and December 4.

Mount Morrison Application: September 25 Planning Commission comments from staff and Jim Hart, county consultant.

Geof

09-04-02, 02:34 PM

The Planning Commission will issue a recommendation following the hearings. Once that recommendation has been issued, hearings will be held before the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. At the conclusion of those hearings, the Board of County Commissioners will issue a decision regarding the LCG application. A decision is anticipated in early 2003.This timeframe must have been based on a March or April submittal date (as I recall we met with the LCG in March timeframe and they anticipated a submittal shortly thereafter). Regardless, I don't think there is anyway in hell the ScareCo decision will be made in early 2003. Witness the KRMA app that was submitted in 4qtr '01 (I think) and still before the planning commission and not yet to the Commissioners.

mbuchana

09-04-02, 03:16 PM

I like the web site!

You might add that KBDI expects to be on the air by May, 2003 from Squaw Mtn.

Mark

JMartinko

09-04-02, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Geof
This time-frame must have been based on a March or April submittal date (as I recall we met with the LCG in March time-frame and they anticipated a submittal shortly thereafter). Regardless, I don't think there is anyway in hell the ScareCo decision will be made in early 2003. Witness the KRMA app that was submitted in 4qtr '01 (I think) and still before the planning commission and not yet to the Commissioners.

Geof
I think you are correct, the KRMA application was submitted in November as I recall, not too long after our meeting at their studios. I also agree there is no way in 'he-doublehockeysticks' a decision will come in early 2003. I think those comments are simply self serving station comments to try to keep the FCC heat off their back. The FCC has begun to fine some of the stations in the country for being late, and I will bet the locals here are starting to sweat a bit. I would guess the forum letters to the FCC stating that we don't see approval before late 2003 and likely will see a law suit even then, do not sit well with the FCC and especially with the local stations. On this subject, I would love to read the KUSA application for extension, since they were supposed to be on the air over 2 years ago and have yet to even purchase a single piece of DTV gear.

JMartinko

09-04-02, 03:50 PM

On another subject, I saw/heard the business news on KUSA this morning (I know, I am not supposed to watch), and they had a short segment on the fact that TV is 75 years old today. They had a gentleman on to discuss the 'future' of television and he discussed the new plasma screens and how much the price has dropped in the last year or so. He mentioned the advent of HDTV and said 'anyone who compares the HDTV and SD picture side by side as you can easily do at stores like 'Sears', is instantly sold on HDTV and its picture quality. During the entire segment, however, there was not a single mention of 'how to get HDTV signals', and of course no mention what so ever of KUSA's effort, or lack of effort to get its own DTV signal on the air. Who could have seen that coming?

It seems the KUSA's public attitude toward DTV is to act like an ostrich and keep their heads firmly planted in the sand. The only problem with that posture, as the ostrich well knows, is that it leaves their exposed butts above ground and in full vision of the public. I guess when you think about it, that pretty much sums up their attitude toward the viewing public.
:mad:

"I saw/heard the business news on KUSA this morning (I know, I am not supposed to watch)" OK Geof, and others, I am now fully dressed in my flame retardant suit so fire away. Actually I just like to watch the hypocrisy on KUSA.

DP1

09-04-02, 04:20 PM

I was looking around some more at the FCC site and it looks like KUSA sent in some documents (as an ammendment) on 8/14, including some 3rd party environmental studies etc.

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=100608440&formid=301&fac_num=23074

You have to scroll down to the bottom of the document and theres links to 3 or 4 Exhibits from there.

KWGN-DT

09-04-02, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by santellavision
I found some time today to create a Denver DTV Website

Denver DTV Website (http://www.santellaproductions.com/dtv/denverdtv.htm)

It's rough, but's it's a start. All the pages aren't up yet, i'll get to them soon.

Email me some info & Links we think should be on there.

Ernie:

Nice job with the site!

Here's some corrected/updated info for KWGN-DT Channel 34:

CP Granted (For Full Power) currently extended to Nov. 1, 2002.
STA request for 450kW operation filed with FCC, waiting on approval.

Telecommunications Permit for half allocated power (450,000 watt) antenna/transmitter from Lookout has been approved by Jefferson County and construction should begin in early fall with a spring OTA estimate.

CARE filed an appeal of the permit approval with the Board of Adjustment on Thursday, August 29, 2002.

Thanks for the continued interest from AVS,
Don Rooney
KWGN-TV
and soon to be
KWGN-DT

Geof

09-04-02, 06:04 PM

KWGN-DT (Don) said,
CARE filed an appeal of the permit approval with the Board of Adjustment on Thursday, August 29, 2002. This probably surprises no one but thanks for the confirmation. Do you have a date when the Board of Adjustments will review it and make a decision?

JMartinko

09-04-02, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by KWGN-DT

CARE filed an appeal of the permit approval with the Board of Adjustment on Thursday, August 29, 2002.

Thanks for the continued interest from AVS,
Don Rooney
KWGN-TV
and soon to be
KWGN-DT

Boy, who coulda seen that one coming????
:mad:

Geof

09-04-02, 06:31 PM

jmartinko said,
I would guess the forum letters to the FCC stating that we don't see approval before late 2003 and likely will see a law suit even then, do not sit well with the FCC and especially with the local stations. On this subject, I would love to read the KUSA application for extension, since they were supposed to be on the air over 2 years ago and have yet to even purchase a single piece of DTV gear.This gives me a segue into saying that my FCC letter was prompted by the current situation and was not brought about by me trying to be vindictive towards the stations. Given a highly probably (S)CARE suit against a favorable LCG ruling (if that happens) it will be likely late '05 before we get high power DTV, which should be unacceptable to everyone here. I firmly believe the FCC should be involved (and perhaps they are behind the scenes). I also do not think any of our local stations should be fined or otherwise "punished" by the FCC, except for KUSA (and possibly KTVD). I do believe KUSA should be fined and forced to do something before the tower is approved and erected. With the exception of KUSA & KTVD every other (major) station is in the process of complying. KRMA and KBDI will likely be on the air (high power-wise) before any of the 3 network stations which I find curious and telling.

In the meantime I hope more letters have been sent off to the FCC. I don't think any of us intentionally want to anger our local stations but (IMO) that possibility shouldn't keep anyone from writing. What we all want is for the stations to be on the air (even if they - i.e, KUSA - do not want to be) and writing letters to the FCC certainly doesn't hurt our chances. They might very well get us there sooner though and that is the point. Keep those cards and letters coming.....

KWGN-DT

09-04-02, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Geof
This probably surprises no one but thanks for the confirmation. Do you have a date when the Board of Adjustments will review it and make a decision?

A hearing date has not been set. Could be October 30 or November 6.

RonAuger

09-05-02, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by mbuchana
I like the web site!

You might add that KBDI expects to be on the air by May, 2003 from Squaw Mtn.

Mark I didn't see it specifically mentioned here, but --
I did a channel scan and was surprised when ch38 showed up!. I'm assuming KBDI is ahead of schedule! I get a 70 signal way out here in Elizabeth. It's only a short demo loop of some CO scenery and part of "Over Chicago", so far. Any idea if their HD programming will mirror KRMA's, perhaps delayed? KRMA is borderline for me.

markdl

09-05-02, 10:15 AM

Really! I'm going to have to rescan myself now when I get home tonight. Anyone hear anything about KCNC broadcasting the tennis tomorrow in HD? I send David Layne an email asking him about it. Of course, I'm assuming that they'll be sending the tennis and football over the weekend.

DP1

09-05-02, 10:23 AM

Great find Ron! I wont even get into what it makes other stations look like. ;)

I'm getting it with a signal strength of only 12 at the moment since my orientation is different but I'm sure if I pointed my antenna westerly as opposed to northeast (downtown) I'd get it.

JMartinko

09-05-02, 11:12 AM

Ron
Great find, thanks for the post. I did a quick scan this morning and didn't get a sniff of a signal, but my antenna is pointed at downtown Denver so I don't know if that is the problem. I have never gotten good reception on KBDI analog and if it is from Squaw, I may not be able to get it now either. I will be curious to see if I can get a hint of a signal from Squaw since those (S)CARE folks claim it is just as good or better than Lookout.

santellavision

09-05-02, 11:24 AM

I'm not getting it either this morning (9am) and i'm up in Genesee. Are they 'on'?
I am pointing 180 degrees toward downtown, but they are soooo close, i should get a signal no matter where i'm pointing.

DP1

09-05-02, 11:54 AM

Yeah, they're on. I just went up and swung my biggest outdoor Yagi around to the west and now get it at about 58 on my Mitsu tuner. Thats pointing directly through a huge cottonwood 30 feet away. As Ron said, it's got a demo loop on.

Not to jump to any conclusions this early on because there's so many variables and that wouldnt be fair, but for the time being at least I can already tell it's going to be hit or miss for folks depending on how much "leeway" they have with their antennas because I have 3 diff antennas to work with in various configurations and suffice it to say it's not a mere cakewalk to dial it in like say 32 or 18 if one would dare say they were a cakewalk comparatively.

JMartinko

09-05-02, 12:19 PM

It will be interesting to see how this works out over time. Even though my HD antenna is pointed at downtown Denver, I get a strong signal on Fox through that antenna, although my receiver has a tough time figuring out how to display Fox when they transmit widescreen (the receiver can't figure out whether it needs to stretch the picture from 4:3 or leave it alone, as a result it keeps flipping back and forth and is unwatchable from my UM OTA receiver). Theoretically if KBDI is near full power it should also come in just fine without the need to re-point my antenna. I can spin the UHF HD antenna around to look west, or hook the receiver up to my regular analog VHF/UHF antenna pointed at Lookout to try it as well. I will still bet I have a LOT of trouble since I can't get their analog version clear either.

dr_mal

09-05-02, 12:22 PM

Only 7 more hours until I can go home from work and try to get 38...

Hot

09-05-02, 12:37 PM

I have a rotating antenna and I rotated it toward the mountains until I received a 60% signal then set channel 38 into my antenna remote.

I am getting a great picture.

DennisMileHi

09-05-02, 12:42 PM

Ron, Thanks for the info!

I just checked and I get 38 with a signal strength of 64 (same as the other stations, except 17). Also, my receiver is noting that the sound is 5.1 although I could not hear anything coming from the rear speakers.

On another point, I have been communicating via email with KRMA about their sound. I can't get the sound to sync on most national feeds while their local loop and broadcasts are fine. They are now aware of the problem as it affects some STBs (mine is a DTC100 inside my RCA). They don't know when it might be fixed. Some of you may have seen this problem and thought you weren't getting the signal. The signal for me is steady at 64 whether the sound works or not.

And... I complained to KMGH last week about their sound not being synced with the video. They fixed it the next day!

santellavision

09-05-02, 01:00 PM

Can't get DT38 to come for nothin'! I swung my big Channel Master around and i can't get a lock on them at all (and i'm about 15 miles away!) I don't have any Pre-amps or splitters either. I do have a couple of huge hills between me and Squaw.

It's amazing that Ron is getting them way out near Parker.
Anybody know what kind of power they are putting out?

pookers

09-05-02, 01:03 PM

Any hope of me getting channel 35 in Castle Rock? I will be (hopefully) moving there in October. Any one want to buy my house?

Sent off a nice comment to the GM at channel 4. And just got a response, it was nice also. Can I even get channel 18 down there...?? sniff sniff.

And I won't even comment about channel 17.

JMartinko

09-05-02, 01:06 PM

I think the issue with Squaw has always been the amount of shadowing or blockage in areas very near the front range, like Boulder and Golden, and likely down south in Roxborough where Geof lives. So far it looks like early results would tend to confirm the problem with the Squaw site, although it may be too early to tell.

Hot

09-05-02, 01:10 PM

I just spoke with Roger Ogden, General Manager at KUSA and he is going full speed ahead to get a low power transmitter on Republic Plaza. He is shooting to get KUSA-DT on the air sometime in November. This is the best news I have heard from KUSA.

Roger gave me permission to post this. He realizes the new Tower on lookout will be delayed.

JMartinko

09-05-02, 01:20 PM

pookers

09-05-02, 01:50 PM

Hot: so do you want to email me with all of your secret contact #'s?
I would like to call KMGH, and tell them that we commend their DTV effort, although putting their xmitter on a two story building is kinda silly.

Great news on the KUSA-DT push...cool.....

and when are they gonna fix channel 32?

Geof

09-05-02, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Hot
I just spoke with Roger Ogden, General Manager at KUSA and he is going full speed ahead to get a low power transmitter on Republic Plaza. He is shooting to get KUSA-DT on the air sometime in November. This is the best news I have heard from KUSA.

Roger gave me permission to post this. He realizes the new Tower on lookout will be delayed. This is terrific news.

We'll probably never know what prompted this change of heart at KUSA but I agree with jm that our FCC letters, along with the complaining on this forum, likely had an impact. In other words I tend to believe this would not be happening if we weren't vocal about it. In my mind this reinforces the notion that we do have a voice and it can be heard. Thank you KUSA (gee, I never thought I'd be saying that today).

KMGH and KTVD: How about joining the rest of the LCG "gang" on Republic Plaza.

With that said, this obviously benefits some of us but not all of us. I still hope something can be done to relocate these temporary low power setups to Lookout or Morrison or Eldorado so that more Front Range residents can receive H/DTV. For example - couldn't some channels "share" the same low power antenna with KWGN-DT (some DT stations are fairly close in frequency to KWGN-DT). I certainly don't know about all of the intricacies involved in this or if KWGN would be willing to "host" some other local stations but I'd hope the area broadcasters are willing to work together to get H/DTV on the air in Denver. To me this makes sense from a business perspective (ok, I know I'm just a dumb old engineer so forgive me) because getting the DTV signal to more residents means growing the DT viewership base and in the long run isn't that a good thing? If nothing more it would serve to cultivate more viewers which may make it harder for ScareCo to turn down applications....

markdl

09-05-02, 03:36 PM

Won't it take KUSA at least a year to fabricate the magic flange that'll be required, though? :D Sorry, couldn't resist. This is indeed great news!

DP1

09-05-02, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Geof
...I agree with jm that our FCC letters, along with the complaining on this forum, likely had an impact. In other words I tend to believe this would not be happening if we weren't vocal about it

No offense, but you gotta be kidding. Doesnt seem to me that anybodies any more vocal about it, at least publicly, than they were 2 years ago. It's been the same dozen guys taking potshots in an open internet forum the whole time.. no more, no less. I'm sure that theres naturally been more inquires about it as time has went on to the station in a more personal way, but to act like they somehow knuckled under the pressure at the prospect of a Dozen Denverite Dance in D.C. is a bit much. ;)

Obviously just as someone at high levels (Network or otherwise) of KMGH and KRMA back in '99 (and KCNC a year ago) thought it was the right thing to do to get a signal on air, regardless of the number of prospective viewers at the time and even if just temporarily, so has somebody now again at high levels, decided to in this case. I'm sure they felt "pressures" but I doubt it's from some small number of early adopters.

But in case I'm wrong and you're right, indeed lets find a new target. Maybe as jm says, KMGH. Those dirty so and so's!! I'm gonna quit watching them altogether (even though I'm one of the few and the proud that gets their digital channel) just for the good of the cause!! And hell, I could prolly pull it off too without having to claim any exemptions like MNF when the Broncos are on it because it so happens Dallas isnt on MNF this year anyways! ;)

Geof

09-05-02, 04:02 PM

No offense, but you gotta be kidding.Nope. Not kidding.
It's been the same dozen guys taking potshots in an open internet forum the whole time.. no more, no less.Don’t know where you’ve been but some of us have written the FCC, which in my mind is a bit more than taking potshots in an internet forum.

Witness dr_mals comments: ” I also request that you consider sanctions against KUSA for not even attempting to make the transition, thumbing their nose at their viewers and the FCC by using other parties as an excuse to not be in compliance with your mandates. Come on, if our PBS station can be on the air, surely NBC could find a way.”

Witness my comments: Deny any further extensions to stations that have made no effort to begin digital broadcasts. You gave them the spectrum for free – our spectrum. Some have refused to use it. Fine, let them refuse, but either take back the spectrum or make them pay to keep it if they refuse to use it under the terms of the "original agreement". In this case KUSA is well behind and should be significantly penalized. Notably, our PBS station (KRMA) managed to get of the air with an STA, well ahead of schedule no less, why should a commercial station get a free ride? Similarly, KTVD and KWGN are also late in meeting their May ’02 deadline.”

And finally witness HDJello’s comments:” I believe that this situation is serious, and that in order for Digital Television to be available in the Denver DMA several steps need to be taken:
· The FCC should admonish stations that have not done anything towards the digital transition. Eventually they should be find and forced to return the extra spectrum they have not used.

Dan, with all due respect just because you do not criticize the stations in this forum and choose not to write letters or otherwise be vocal about this situation doesn’t mean the stations and/or the FCC ignore those of us who are vocal. While I am not specifically being critical of your non-actions I would hope you don't lessen our efforts to mere "potshots".

JMartinko

09-05-02, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by markdl
Won't it take KUSA at least a year to fabricate the magic flange that'll be required, though? :D

KUSA should be pretty good at fabricating by now, they have been fabricating their interest in doing HDTV for about 3 years now.
:D

Dan
I disagree with your assessment of the impact of the "Dozen Denverite Dance". I commented the other day about wanting to see KUSA's latest excuse and request for an extension because I think the LCG has been trying to sell the FCC on the concept that approval would be coming 'any day now' and 'the check is in the mail'.

Frankly, I think letters to the FCC which pointed out the fact that even WITH approval, DTV is still several years away, and also likely to see a law suit or two to slow things up even more, at the very least inspired the FCC to do a little checking. I am betting that until recently they have been buying everything they were told by the LCG in terms of timetables, and I would expect that a few quick phone calls to Jeffco could confirm that approval was a long way off. I do know for a fact that certain local stations were 'extremely upset' by our letter writing campaign. I also know that the FCC has now begun to fine some stations for not being on the air, and I would guess they are getting tired of the line being given them by stations like KUSA (one of only 3 in the top 30 markets) who are not on the air at all. I would bet KUSA tried to buy more time, and at the very least, our letters helped prevent that ploy from working. I would also bet that KUSA was close to being fined, and from a business standpoint may be assuming that spending the money on a low power station may be better than writing checks to the FCC for non-compliance.

I believe you may slightly underestimate the impact of letters to the FCC. One letter to them is probably a sign that there are a hundred people out there just as angry but not making the effort to write. You are, of course, aware that letters from the public are a very important part of the normal license renewal process for each station every few years. The FCC does listen, they just normally don't do much afterword. Were our letters the main reason that KUSA broke down? Probably not, but they sure didn't hurt either.

DP1

09-05-02, 04:53 PM

Well then. This is great news for all the folks that live around the other 800 stations that missed the deadline. Even if it never dawned on them to write the FCC maybe it will now.

And then even better, not only will the FCC get on somebodies ass within 2 weeks because of it but we also now know that a station that supposedly had no desire or plan whatsoever to get even a temporary signal on air, wanting to stall as long as absolutely possible (to hear tell), can actually presume to pull off having a digital signal up and running within 90 days after getting "the call".

Who knew?

Maybe it's time to talk to KWGN again and ask how come they, who have been planning their low power solution for awhile (certainly longer than like a week, right?), wont somehow manage to be on air til spring.

Geof

09-05-02, 05:01 PM

Okay Dan,
You're right.
You don't do anything to support the effort here. Haven't signed a petition. Won't write JeffCo to support the stations even though you live in Jefferson County, won't write the FCC, don't criticize the stations and semi-regularly ridicule my comments (as in "I'm gonna quit watching them altogether (even though I'm one of the few and the proud that gets their digital channel) just for the good of the cause!!"). You don't have conversations with folks behind the scenes (like some here) but hey, you certainly must be in a position to know what is happening since you're so down-right confident that we're all wasting our time here taking "potshots".

Just what the hell is it you bring to the table other than belittling the rest of us?

JMartinko

09-05-02, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by DP1
Well then. This is great news for all the folks that live around the other 800 stations that missed the deadline. Even if it never dawned on them to write the FCC maybe it will now.

And then even better, not only will the FCC get on somebodies ass within 2 weeks because of it but we also now know that a station that supposedly had no desire or plan whatsoever to get even a temporary signal on air, wanting to stall as long as absolutely possible (to hear tell), can actually presume to pull off having a digital signal up and running within 90 days after getting "the call".

Who knew?

Maybe it's time to talk to KWGN again and ask how come they, who have been planning their low power solution for awhile (certainly longer than like a week, right?), wont somehow manage to be on air til spring.

Not sure who put the burr under your saddle Dan?? Concerning the 800 stations that missed the deadline, I posted the links the other day. In the top 30 market there are 5 major network stations not on the air in any way, two in Hartford, two that lost transmitters on the WTC, and KUSA. I can't speak for the Hartford stations, so I don't know how soon they will be on the air, but I will bet it will be before 3 years are up. KUSA is the only station (assuming Hartford will be on soon) who had no plans to be on the air in any way.

"but we also now know that a station that supposedly had no desire or plan whatsoever to get even a temporary signal on air"

Dan, there was NO SUPPOSEDLY about it. The KUSA representative (assistant station manager as I recall) stated flat out to the entire group that night at KCNC that KUSA had no plans to be on the air with ANY low power transmitter, but would instead wait until the application on Lookout was approved or rejected. Those were HIS words, not ours. Ask anyone that was there, perhaps you missed the comment. That was NOT speculation on our part, that was publicly stated at a DTV status meeting. Perhaps you would care to debate your comment with KUSA, not with the forum.

You are, of course entitled to your opinion (free from insults from the rest of us), I think we are entitled to the same courtesy. I KNOW for a fact that the letters to the FCC brought a VERY STRONG reaction in the local stations.

I will concede that possibly the threat of an FCC fine was more responsible than our letters into getting KUSA of their butts, but I will not listen to your comments that they 'supposedly had no plans'. It they did have plans then they flat out lied to us in May. If you believe they lied to us, then say it, but do not tell us they did not tell the group they had 'no alternative plan'. We did not 'make this stuff up'.

DP1

09-05-02, 06:30 PM

I'm not suggesting anybody was/is lieing about anything. The only point I'm trying to make is I didnt realize it was technologically/logistically possible I guess (much less without true desire) to go from a "not over my dead body" position to a position of... shooting for November (60-90 days) to be on air even if the FCC totally put their foot down. Unless they put thier foot down a while ago as opposed to a week ago.

It seems to me just as likely that sometime in the last couple months due to Network persuasion/backing (finally more HD) or whatever that they've decided to go this route.

But hey, if not, and they're doing it because they suddenly have to and nothing more, so be it. If they can just now go and order all the parts they will need and they come in within a month or 6 weeks and then they can tie it all together within another month or 6 weeks and I'm tuned to 16 (or whatever it is) on Turkey Day, thats great!

Afterall I guess if the FCC said to them that beginning on Sept 1 you will be fined 1000.00 a day for every day without a digital signal, but that fine will be waved if you've got something on air by say Jan 1, I reckon they'd start hustling pretty good wouldnt they? Thered be no logical reason for them not to.

Hot

09-05-02, 06:33 PM

I remember Perez of KUSA telling us at the KCNC meeting that there were no plans for low power.

I first sent an email to the KUSA I-Team asking them to investigate their management in regard to HDTV, then an email to Roger Ogden.

I then decided to call Roger Ogden. He was on the phone and his secretary asked if I wanted to speak to Perez in engineering. I said no, he could not help because he was at the mercy of Roger Ogden for funding. Then Roger Ogden came on the phone and said he had just received my email. I told him about KBDI-DT being on the air and why couldn't KUSA at least try to get on the air. Then he dropped the bombshell and told me they were working on it. Maybe the FCC letters did help.

Now it is just a waiting game to see if they make the November date.

Geof

09-05-02, 06:43 PM

I remember Perez of KUSA telling us at the KCNC meeting that there were no plans for low power. Yeap, I heard the same thing.

Dan,
We'd have to go back a research the thread when KCNC announced their low power DT plans but I don't believe they estimated very long to get their setup going (but then they got hung up and didn't meet their projected date). But to answer your question, no I don't think November is an unrealistic date even if they made up their mind to do it just last week. Then again, what they're shooting for (time-wise) and what they end up with may be two different things and we know not how realistic their schedule is (this is not a jab at them - having been in aerospace for way too long I can assure you there are schedules and then there are schedules - some are fantasy based, some reality based, and some "green-light" based).

Again, I don't think that jm nor I said the letters were the reason for this change of position - we're just saying they may have had an impact (and I personally remain convinced that that is indeed the case).

JMartinko

09-05-02, 06:54 PM

Boy, the potential good news just keeps on coming. Just got a quick note from HDNet. The person I contacted had been out of town and just got back in today, hence I had not heard back. They will "look into the possibility of a tour for us". :D

That is not the same as a 'yes, here are the dates', but it is better than a 'no, we never allow tours'! I will keep my fingers, toes, eyes, etc. crossed and let you all know if we can set this up.

dr_mal

09-05-02, 06:57 PM

BobPiet

09-05-02, 07:16 PM

Suggestion for the Denver DTV website (it looks good by the way):

A reception map tracking reception reports (1 to 10) for each broadcasting station against locations would be useful but probably a lot of work.

A quick and dirty system might be rigged using gps coordinates and Excel or a mapping program. I'll think about a way it might be done and report if I come up with something.

RonAuger

09-05-02, 07:28 PM

I have MS MapPoint, which can uses a database (or Excel) to map addresses, zip codes, Lat/Long, etc. I have used it to plot the existing analog towers and the stations addresses. If I have time tonight, I'll convert it to a JPG and post it here. It works great, provided the data is accurate.

santellavision

09-05-02, 07:44 PM

I think the map idea is good but... It depends so much on antenna size, location of obstructions etc. Like me, I can't get KBDI and i live 10 miles away, but i can get KCNC/KRMA all the way from downtown. What would be the criteria for equipment?

DP1

09-05-02, 07:55 PM

I'm going to be interested in the reports from the fellas on KBDI. I can get it but not as well as I'd like. It seems the only way is by pointing the big ass outdoor yagi that I use to zero in on 17, to the west instead of n/e. I was hoping I could use one of my smaller antennas pointed at KBDI to feed my other tuner that signal.

I really dont feel like putting the biggun on a rotor at this point, not that KBDI is all that important for now aside from the "principle" of it.

I wonder if this is going to be a strange case where the farther you are from the foothills to the east (within reason) the better off you'll be.

JohnJr

09-05-02, 08:15 PM

Wow this is exciting stuff!

Kudos KUSA for finally listening to ALL YOUR INPUTS and trying to get a signal up. Personally, I think our little DDD had a good deal of impact in getting KUSA up. Heck I think we had an input in most all of the stations except KDVR.

We have helped them diagnose problems, we have helped them understand the issues from a consumers perspective, we have congratulated them when appropriate and berated them too. We have asked for their action on this issue and I think we are seeing the fruits or that now regarding KUSA.

While I don't think the last barrage of letters to the FCC did the trick, I think Roger Ogden has been thinking about DDD, in all of his HDTV thoughts. He has been doing this since our KCNC meeting, especially. I wouldn't doubt that he has a person dedicated to read this forum as David Layne at KCNC said he did.

KCNC was up in record time, as I recall Dan. Again, I think in large part to our input.

Anyway, I think this is a happy time for all of us... High Power is gonna be a pipe dream for a long-time now. Getting KUSA on board low-power is a significant milestone. Congratulations every one of you DDD'ers :)

Now who can we piss off at KMGH and KTVD? <wink>

jm: good news on the HDNet tour... keep us imformed please!

-John

smithdzd

09-05-02, 10:23 PM

I haven't been out here in awhile, but it looks like some good progress has been made with the KUSA announcement and KBDI going live. Also, great work to Ernie on the Denver DTV website, it looks great!

I was just watching the Denver Grand Prix on HDNet. Glad to see that Mark is providing us with some programming from our own area! I will certainly be happy when KUSA gets on the air, but as others have said I'm not holding my breath until i actually see something but the news is promising.

Now that should give KMGH and KTVD a good kick in the rear since KUSA is finally getting on the stick.

- Dustin

dr_mal

09-05-02, 10:32 PM

I tried to pull in channel 38, but the best I could do with my cheap, broken, indoor rabbit ears was about 30 signal strength. I don't want to move my big ol' UHF antenna; I finally have a decent, stable, lock on KCNC :)

If I can get 30 with a broken cheap set of rabbit ears, I'll look into getting better, not-broken rabbit ears and see what I can do. Looks promising though.

Phil T

09-05-02, 10:33 PM

Is 38 on tonight? After reading the news today I thought I might get a signal. I have a Radio Shack $20 UHF special pointed at downtown and get 18,32 & 35 fine. I can get a signal from 17 (it won't lock).

Anyway, no sign of 38 from KenCaryl and Pierce area.

Geof

09-05-02, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by JMartinko
I think the issue with Squaw has always been the amount of shadowing or blockage in areas very near the front range, like Boulder and Golden, and likely down south in Roxborough where Geof lives. So far it looks like early results would tend to confirm the problem with the Squaw site, although it may be too early to tell. Shadowing is exactly the issue with Squaw. Lookout and Morrison are right on the Front range while Squaw sits "well back" (to the West). The Squaw antennas are difficult to see (maybe impossible along C470 near the mountains) and as you know if you can't see them it's difficult for the signal coming from them to see you. I don't know if everyone has an appreciation where Squaw is but here's how you get there: Take I70 West and get off on the Evergreen Expressway. Continue on this for several miles until you get to Squaw Mtn Road (or something like that) and hang a right at this light. Take that road for 12 miles or so until you get to the turn off for the Fire station overlook. That's a dirt road that is gated closed after .8 miles but you can park and walk up to the overlook (great view BTW) - the towers are near the overlook....Even though Squaw is higher than Lookout or Morrison it can be blocked by other mountains along and near the Front Range....

I tried to lock onto the KBDI signal using my antenna pointing towards Lookout. I get a big fat "0" (even KMGH comes in with a signal strength of 6 ......). Some folks will have quite a bit of luck getting this signal while others like Ernie and I will not. If you get KBDI TV (Ch12) well you'll probably do well with 38. If 12 comes in poorly then 38 may be iffy...Everyone's mileage may vary and this is why the stations claim Squaw isn't very suitable (and rightfully so from my perspective).

DP1

09-05-02, 11:23 PM

I live real close to you Phil. Just a few blocks southwest. As I said earlier, I can get 38 but only if I point due west with a big outdoor antenna.

As far as 17, is your antenna outdoors? I had that smaller one originally but got the bigger $40.00 UHF only one and with it on the roof I get 17 pretty good. No prob at all in the summer actually but some issues in the winter at times.

In fact I have an extra of the bigger ones if you ever want to get together and try it some day just for the heck of it.

markdl

09-05-02, 11:53 PM

I tried to get 38 tonight - got absolutely nothing with my Dish 6000 receiver, and just barely a blip with my hipix card using my radioshack double bowtie antenna in my basement. The blip was enough to get a static picture, but no motion and no sound. Oh well...at least I'm getting 17 back in reasonably reliably...

I'm still amazed Dan that I have a lot better luck getting 17 in the winter and you get it better in the summer. Who knows - maybe this time next year, we'll both get it because their antenna will be where it belongs (temporarily) with the others up on a real building.

Tomorrow and Saturday I'm really going to be putting my hipix through its paces - 19 1/2 hours of HD sports to record and watch between all of the tennis and football. It's gonna be a good weekend. Now only if it was 16 hours of football and 3 hours of tennis...:D

dr_mal

09-06-02, 12:53 AM

Well, I was just able to pull in a high-30s signal from 38 without adjusting my antenna -- maybe cooler temperatures in the evening? Anyway, the picture looked a little soft to me -- or maybe I'm just getting tired. They are definitely broadcasting a Dolby Digital 5.1 audio feed, but only the front left and right channels are active. Er, that is, all 5.1 channels are active, but only the front left and right have sound coming out of them.

Woo hoo -- my local HDTV channels just doubled!

b5lurker

09-06-02, 01:47 AM

After reading tonight that 38 was up I tried tuning it with my HTPC with a MyHD card and was able to get around 60% on the cheap amplified UHF antenna that I have setting higher in my living room. The other antenna that I have setting lower was not able to pick up anything from it. It seems to be coming in just as well as KCNC-DT on the same antennas.

I live off of E-470 and Quincy in SE Aurora, just for reference.

Another HD channel! So far it has been a great week for HD, with KBDI and the news on KUSA!

Lets keep our fingers crossed on KUSA for November.

Steve

MRinDenver

09-06-02, 10:48 AM

I, too, lost some hope after what I perceived was a fiasco with the Jefferson County application(s). Maybe that lost hope was a part of Dan's concerns and problems.

But Hot's news really is hot news.

I hope the letters you guys blasted to the FCC did the trick. It certainly didn't hurt our cause. In any case, I'm suddenly hopeful again.

Now we can begin bugging KMGH. I am starting to think that public pressure can make a difference.

Good work, guys. And Dan, despite your skepticism (and mine), I bet you find yourself accessing the NBC HD signal that these guys worked so hard to get for you and for me.

Mike

Geof

09-06-02, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by MRinDenver
....
I hope the letters you guys blasted to the FCC did the trick. It certainly didn't hurt our cause. In any case, I'm suddenly hopeful again.

Now we can begin bugging KMGH. I am starting to think that public pressure can make a difference.

Mike Yeah. Let's hope they will move their antenna. It would make a big difference and increase their digital audience by a large percentage (hey 14 to just 28 is a 100% increase :) ). I can't see this costing a lot of money.....

I agree with your sentiments that maybe "public pressure can make a difference". I hope we all keep this in mind down the road. (S)CARE is very well organized and cohesive (i.e., they speak with "one voice"). Maybe the stations have listened to us (which a lot of us believe based on the comments so far). If that is the case then maybe JeffCo will listen to us. The point is we need to be there and speak our mind when the time comes. If we are organized and speak with "one loud voice" (so to speak) we may indeed get our message across to JeffCo. There is one thing we know for certain and that is - We certainly won't be heard if we do not speak.

santellavision

09-06-02, 11:38 AM

I'll peridically post the Denver DTV website link for those who just join us and don't feel like searching the entire thread (which i recommend to understand the entire situation)

Denver DTV Information Website (http://www.santellaproductions.com/dtv/denverdtv.htm)

Geof

09-06-02, 11:44 AM

Speaking of KMGH maybe we could all try emailing the General Manager and ask them to re-locate their antenna. They have a web based “contact us” email submission, which can be found here (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/newstips/) (use the pull down menu to select the General Manager).

Here was my message:

"I realize that KMGH is broadcasting on their digital channel with an antenna located on the roof of your building. While I applaud this interim solution it (unfortunately) reaches a very small audience compared to other low power broadcasts emanating from the top of the Republic Plaza building. Based on the most recent LCG application it is clear to me that any possible Lookout mountain solution is at least 2 years away, and likely further away given the virtual certainty that CARE will appeal any approval you might receive from Jefferson County. Given this timeframe for a “final solution” I am requesting that KMGH seek a more suitable interim solution by locating your low power antenna on top of the Republic Plaza (or some other similarly suitable location).

I also request that the LCG investigate some sort of temporary accommodations with Jefferson County to allow you (and the other LCG stations) to place your low power antennas on Lookout or Morrison, or Eldorado (etc) so that an even larger digital audience can be reached.

Thank-you,"

......
......

dr_mal

09-06-02, 12:02 PM

Message sent to KMGH GM:

Re: HDTV reception

I understand that KMGH-DT channel 17 is broadcasting from your location downtown. Unfortunately, from where I live (Brighton), I can't get a hint of your signal. I wonder if you would consider moving your transmitter to the top of Republic Plaza, as most other stations without DTV facilities on Lookout for now are doing. I can pick up KCNC-DT Channel 35 fairly easily, and I understand KUSA-DT Channel 16 will be putting a temporary transmitter there as well this fall/winter.

I bet you could easily double your HDTV viewing audience by a simple transmitter move. Those of us with HDTV setups have a rather cynical term: "the lucky 7" (has since expanded to the lucky 14) to represent the confirmed households that can receive your signal. I'm sure you don't want your station to be considered the punch line to the pathetic HDTV situation here in Denver, do you?

markdl

09-06-02, 01:34 PM

Just sent my message to the KMGH GM as well, and one to 7News Investigates. Think we'll get a response?

pookers

09-06-02, 01:37 PM

ok, folks i sent one off to the GM at KMGH.

RonAuger

09-06-02, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by santellavision
Denver DTV Information Website (http://www.santellaproductions.com/dtv/denverdtv.htm) Ernie,
Here are some maps of the towers and stations, if you wish to use them on your website.
http://bricklin.org/AVSForum/Stations&Towers.htm

Geof

09-06-02, 02:14 PM

Good Maps Ron - thanks.

The one location map pretty clearly shows how far west the Squaw Mtn site is (as compared to Lookout and Morrison)....

santellavision

09-06-02, 02:28 PM

Ron, Nice Job!
I put it up under station info, I'll make a button for it later. What about a map of just the digital x-mitters so new viewers can see the locations to aim their antenna's?

MRinDenver

09-06-02, 04:11 PM

OK Geof, I'm there. I sent KMGH an e-mail, too.

RonAuger

09-06-02, 04:33 PM

I posted a message to KMGH GM also ... and signed it as Dan!

RonAuger

09-06-02, 04:48 PM

I posted a message to KMGH GM also ... and signed it as Dan!

dr_mal

09-06-02, 04:51 PM

lol

RonAuger

09-06-02, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by santellavision
Ron, Nice Job!
I put it up under station info, I'll make a button for it later. What about a map of just the digital x-mitters so new viewers can see the locations to aim their antenna's? Sure. I'll need a street address or Lat/Long for Republic Plaza; I'm not that familiar with downtown to guess.

dr_mal

09-06-02, 05:08 PM

370 17th St DENVER, CO 80202-1370

JohnJr

09-06-02, 05:21 PM

I sent off my email to KMGH...

-John

BobPiet

09-06-02, 07:10 PM

I don't disagree that a comprehensive DTV reception map is pretty flakey unless the receivers can be calibrated somehow. Do TV stations build reception maps to check for weaknesses, shadows, potential number of viewers, etc.?

I think your idea for just a simple map with the transmitter locations is a good start; perhaps simple reception reports organized per station would be of interest.

RonAuger

09-06-02, 07:15 PM

Ernie, New maps with the low-power DTV transmitters and the LCG new tower marked: http://bricklin.org/AVSForum/DenverTV.htm.
You may just want to link to this URL and I'll keep it updated (KUSA-DT will be added one day!)

JohnJr

09-06-02, 07:45 PM

Ron,

For the sake of completeness what about adding El Dorado to the "possible transmission sites" graphic? Thanks!

-John

RonAuger

09-06-02, 10:02 PM

Actually, I've only mapped actual current TV transmission towers, with the only exception being the tower proposed by the LCG's 2nd application. I suppose I should map the location of KRMA's Morrison tower also since it is a bona fide application in process.

If I am missing a current channel (nobody watches PAX, Shopping, etc., right?) or if any of the data is incorrect, please let me know.

Jotaman

09-07-02, 03:56 AM

Ron, thanks for the link and the post re: digital transmission locations. I am looking at moving from I-25/120th and can pick anywhere in the front range. Other than price (anyone selling a one or two bedroom condo?), my next criteria is to pick up as many DTV signals as possible. Armed with your map, I can now try to locate to get my money's worth from my DTV equipment.

Reading through this thread, I have seen postings stating basic locations and signals received. Does anyone in this thread know of a summary post or can you post your main crossroads and signals received? In my case, I an in an apt. surrounded by other apts., so I get FOX(32) but that's it (no CBS, no PBS) with either a RS double bowtie or RS UHF yagi.

JMartinko

09-07-02, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Jotaman
Does anyone in this thread know of a summary post or can you post your main crossroads and signals received?
I don't think there has ever been such a post. I believe your best bet is to post some of the areas after you find some places you might buy and then people living in those areas can report in. The only time anyone has ever collected a group of locations was during our meeting last winter at KRMA. They had a map in the room and we all put in pins on our locations. There were about 20 of us that night, but there are a lot of new names posting since that time.

santellavision

09-07-02, 02:35 PM

Jotaman,

Boy, it's not easy to find a place in the Metro area where you will be able to pickup all the current Low-power DTV (Especially in a Condo, where you may not be able to put up a big Yagi antenna) If you want to get ABC, you can't get too far away from downtown. Even though, i have heard of some getting a signal in Highlands Ranch (with an outdoor antenna)

Not sure about the Lakewood area, anybody getting DT38 in Lakewood? I think we're just starting to see the real truth about 'shadowing'. So far, most on the west side of town can't get them because of the 'shadow' problem the front range causes.

Just more ammunition for the stations to use against ScareCo. Now, we finally have True Facts that Squaw will Not work for DTV in Denver. We've all heard that 8VSB was a bad decision, not we can see why.

Geof

09-07-02, 03:42 PM

We've all heard that 8VSB was a bad decision, not we can see why.Just to clarify - 8VSB and the DT38 shadowing problem are really two different things. Shadowing is basically caused by not having a "line of sight" path from the transmitter antenna to the receive antenna. In crude terms, if your antenna cannot "see" the transmitting antenna than it's not going to get a signal from that antenna. There are some secondary factors like diffraction and atmospheric bending that allow you to receive the signal even if you do not have line of sight to the transmitting antenna but as the frequency goes up this gets less likely (and DT38 is up there frequency-wise). As an analogy, think of the transmitting signal as being a light source - if nothing is blocking your view you could see the light...if there is something blocking your view then you need to hope for diffraction and/or maybe a reflection to see any light (the moon is effectively shadowed by the Earth when it is a new moon and is not shadowed when it is a full moon).

The issue with 8VSB is not with shadows but with reflections. Depending upon the geography of your antenna, the transmitting antenna and surrounding hills, buildings, etc, it is possible to receive more than one signal from the transmitting antenna. You might get a direct signal (if there is no shadowing) and one or more reflected signals as it bounces off of large objects and is reflected to your antenna. Reflections have to travel farther than the main signal and therefore do not arrive at the same time as the main signal - they are delayed in time by an amount determined by the reflection path. If you have multiple reflections your receiver "sees" multiple signals - all delayed in time by varying amounts. If this happens with NTSC you see ghost(s). If it happens with 8VSB your receiver may not be able to lock onto the signal and decode it. 8VSB receivers are sensitive to the amount and delay of reflected signals. Note: A directional antenna may help in this case because it can have more gain for the main signal and less gain for reflected signals (depending upon antenna characteristics and where the reflected signals are coming from).

So to boil it down to grossly over simplified terms, shadowing means your receiver has no signal to receive and multipath (the 8VSB receiver weakness) means your receiver gets more than one signal (on one channel) and may get "confused" so it cannot lock onto the signal.

Again, if you can't get TV12 you're going to have a challenge getting DT38. If 12 is snowy that means you're getting a weak signal (and perhaps no main signal but a reflection), and if it has ghosts you are getting multipath (you're receiver sees multiple signals). You may want to try pointing your antenna in all directions to see if you can pick up a reflection if you cannot get a "line of sight" signal.