And a shameless attempt to get the top of page 500, John ;)
And a shameless attempt to get the far less important 15000 post (since anyone could see the post number leading up to that post number).
:D

EDIT:
Now getting the top of both pages 500 and 501, now there is a challenge and a true accomplishement.

When color TV was introduced did that constitute same service or were new permits required?

To add to Ron's reply - there have been many improvements to the same service over the years - mono FM to stereo to HD - from B/W to color to stereo (with DPL encoding), added closed captioning, SAP, etc. On the content side, network affiliations changed ten years ago. The crux of the matter that will be argued is that none of the improvements changed the service. My old TV with an antenna pointed to channel 9's tower still worked. When I need a converter box to change the service 'back' to working with my old TV - then (at least in JeffCo) it could probably be successfullly argued that something 'changed' in the service. For many years I didn't think 'same service' would hold up, but I do now.. The best shot IMO is to overrule it in the interest of the community at large. I hope the LCG lawyers are working this issue (unless they know something as 'fact' about the consolidated tower being given the green light).

:D Yeah baby -- post #15,000!
Nice work!

So do we know anything about the new Golden city councilman?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4652379,00.html

hmmm, sounds as though a 'dude' beat out the 'babe' ;)

hmmm, sounds as though a 'dude' beat out the 'babe' ;)

It sounds like you guys are all about winning friends and influencing people.

;o)

"Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend to them all the care, kindness and understanding you can muster, and do it with no thought of any reward. Your life will never be the same again. " ~ Og Mandino

AT the Lake Cedar Group meeting in Fort Collins last night - one suggestion was made to broadcast a HD signal at night after the normal stations are shut down and off the air - to see how reception is in Larimer and Weld County. The Lake Cedar Group guys liked that idea.

Reggie

It sounds like you guys are all about winning friends and influencing people.

;o)

"Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend to them all the care, kindness and understanding you can muster, and do it with no thought of any reward. Your life will never be the same again. " ~ Og Mandino
It is normally clear to most forum members that about 90% or more of my posts are meant to be humorous, usually accompanied by a heavy dose of sarcasm or satire. Included at the end of these posts you will normally find a "Big Grin" ( :D ), a "Wink" ( ;) ), a "Rolleyes" ( :rolleyes: ) or combination thereof (i.e. :D ;) :rolleyes: ). Good old 'Mr. Rolleyes' being present more than likely means that what you just read was SARCASM. More information can be found HERE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasm). My job involves pushing lots of buttons, I can't help that it sometimes carries over into my forum posts.

My (sometimes admittedly feeble) attempts at humor could possibly go unnoticed and I may even offend the more sensitive members of this thread. From now on I will append the following 'Warning' to these posts:

***WARNING!***
WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ MAY INDUCE GRINNING, SMILES, GUFFAWS, CHUCKLES, LAUGHTER OR POSSIBLY EVEN AN EPISODE KNOWN SCIENTIFICALLY AS 'ROFLMAO'. IN RARE AND EXTREME CASES BLADDER CONTROL PROBLEMS MAY RESULT (author is not responsible for any dry-cleaning expenses incurred by the reader). READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

Oh, BTW, :D ;) :rolleyes: :eek:

It is normally clear to most forum members that about 90% or more of my posts are meant to be humorous, usually accompanied by a heavy dose of sarcasm or satire. Included at the end of these posts you will normally find a "Big Grin" ( :D ), a "Wink" ( ;) ), a "Rolleyes" ( :rolleyes: ) or combination thereof (i.e. :D ;) :rolleyes: ). Good old 'Mr. Rolleyes' being present more than likely means that what you just read was SARCASM. More information can be found HERE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasm). My job involves pushing lots of buttons, I can't help that it sometimes carries over into my forum posts.

My (sometimes admittedly feeble) attempts at humor could possibly go unnoticed and I may even offend the more sensitive members of this thread. From now on I will append the following 'Warning' to these posts:

***WARNING!***
WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ MAY INDUCE GRINNING, SMILES, GUFFAWS, CHUCKLES, LAUGHTER OR POSSIBLY EVEN AN EPISODE KNOWN SCIENTIFICALLY AS 'ROFLMAO'. IN RARE AND EXTREME CASES BLADDER CONTROL PROBLEMS MAY RESULT (author is not responsible for any dry-cleaning expenses incurred by the reader). READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

Oh, BTW, :D ;) :rolleyes: :eek:

Speaking of bladder control, i think I just lost 3 drops of pee in my pants laughing at your post.

By the way, I understood what you ment.

-Matt

I've been receiving a strong signal from 19-1 the last few days but no picture or sound on both my E* 211 & 811. Haven't seen any posts on this. Just want to make sure it isn't a problem at my end.

I just checked and after a short pause my LSS3200 changed it to 19-3 and is diplaying a good picture. 19-1 went away. I cant speak about the last few days since I only use OTA for HD

Thanks, longrider, I'll rescan when I get home.

I just checked and after a short pause my LSS3200 changed it to 19-3 and is diplaying a good picture. 19-1 went away. I cant speak about the last few days since I only use OTA for HD

For the past few days I have noticed that my automated program "hangs" when it tries to download the electronic programming guide from channel 19 (OTA). Maybe they are having some problems with their PSIP information.

B.J.

:eek:
It is normally clear to most forum members that about 90% or more of my posts are meant to be humorous, usually accompanied by a heavy dose of sarcasm or satire. Included at the end of these posts you will normally find a "Big Grin" ( :D ), a "Wink" ( ;) ), a "Rolleyes" ( :rolleyes: ) or combination thereof (i.e. :D ;) :rolleyes: ). Good old 'Mr. Rolleyes' being present more than likely means that what you just read was SARCASM. More information can be found HERE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasm). My job involves pushing lots of buttons, I can't help that it sometimes carries over into my forum posts.

My (sometimes admittedly feeble) attempts at humor could possibly go unnoticed and I may even offend the more sensitive members of this thread. From now on I will append the following 'Warning' to these posts:

***WARNING!***
WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ MAY INDUCE GRINNING, SMILES, GUFFAWS, CHUCKLES, LAUGHTER OR POSSIBLY EVEN AN EPISODE KNOWN SCIENTIFICALLY AS 'ROFLMAO'. IN RARE AND EXTREME CASES BLADDER CONTROL PROBLEMS MAY RESULT (author is not responsible for any dry-cleaning expenses incurred by the reader). READ AT YOUR OWN RISK
.........

:rolleyes:
ROFLMAO
:D

;o)I'm not sure .. but I think the shorthand above means "you puckering a$$hole".
I don't think AVS has an emoticon for that one!

AT the Lake Cedar Group meeting in Fort Collins last night - one suggestion was made to broadcast a HD signal at night after the normal stations are shut down and off the air - to see how reception is in Larimer and Weld County. The Lake Cedar Group guys liked that idea.


To clarify, the suggestion was to broadcast a digital signal from Lookout Mountain on the existing analog frequencies, antennas, and towers in the wee hours of the morning when the existing equipment wasn't otherwise being used to broadcast an analog signal.

Get out your rabbit ears, Northern Colorado...

-Glen

Do they really turn off the TV stations at night?

Do they really turn off the TV stations at night?

I don't know. They used to go off air. Maybe now they show infomercials instead.

All the stations stay on-the-air almost 24/7. Maybe a hour or two here and there early morning for mantainence. I think the idea of them doing some digital broadcasting at night might slip by the sCARE, JeffCo, and Golden folks. So, they might be able to use the "we've been broadcasting digial for 3 years now..." as additional testimony in the 2009 changeout injunction trials. Especially since there cannot be ANY sCARE members with OTA receivers, right?

I don't know how difficult it would be to change transmitters/line feeds to the tower inside the building every night.

Wouldn't that be at the exciter stage since the final output amplifer would be the same?

To clarify, the suggestion was to broadcast a digital signal from Lookout Mountain on the existing analog frequencies, antennas, and towers in the wee hours of the morning when the existing equipment wasn't otherwise being used to broadcast an analog signal.

Get out your rabbit ears, Northern Colorado...

-Glen

Dont get my hopes up.

I would be more than willing to give feedback on signal or whatever they needed. I am up in Greeley and all I get for HD is Fox out of Ft collins and CBS out of Cheyenne.

I am impacted by this tower decision quite a bit.

Wouldn't that be at the exciter stage since the final output amplifer would be the same?

Yep, just the exciter.

If I am not mistaken, the stations can choose to keep their current analog channel assignments (KUSA stays with channel 9, KMGH stays on 7 etc.) for their digital signal when the conversion takes place. If I am not mistaken, KUSA has elected to stay on their analog assignment upon conversion.
The stations have already chosen their final (post-conversion) frequencies. KUSA and KMGH are both keeping their analog frequencies (7 and 9). KTVD is keeping their digital frequency (19) but that's close enough that their current transmitter (on Mt. Morrison) should work. KRMA has also elected to keep their analog assignment (6); we don't talk about them much but I suspect they are deliberately slow-rolling the new transmitter they said they were going to build on Mt. Morrison and will just flash-cut their Lookout transmitter.

The only channel that needs to make an equipment change is KCNC, since they will be keeping their digital frequency (35). Once we get close to 2009 and it is clear that all the other stations are going to stay on Lookout Mountain, Jeffco is going to look prettty spiteful if they try to make KCNC move away while all the others get to stay. So I predict that at the end of the day KCNC will get permission to make the necessary changes. An alternate scenario is that they could do a channel swap with KTVD, whose license may be a lot less valuable after they lose their UPN affiliation next fall.

That's my prediction, and you can have your money back if it doesn't come true.

My guess is that the FCC would give KCNC permission to stay on channel 4 if it really came down to it. The other stations were given the choice, it's just that KCNC is still posturing that they will be able to build the new tower. YMMV

OXOTHUK,

I was already aware that the final station assignments had been selected (my post could have been more clear). I was curious if KCNC could backtrack and select their analog channel assignment (given the extenuating circumstances). Will the FCC allow this or are they stuck?

-Matt

For the possible middle of the night "test" digital transmissions from Lookout, wouldn't the stations have to apply for a new STA of some kind? I don't think they're allowed to move transmission sites at will and what level of ERP would they use?

I also agree with Oxothuk's points as possibilities except for the point on swapping KTVD's channel 19 with KCNC's channel 35. Since KUSA's parent, Gannett, now does/will soon own KTVD, I'm not sure they will want to give something to a competitor (KCNC) without at least some $$$ changing hands. Also, if Gannett gives up channel 19 to KCNC, where does that leave Gannett except with a license and no transmitter? Not sure they want to do that.

Article in the Golden Transcript.Here (http://www.jeffconews.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2006-04-27&-token.story=160280.112112&-token.subpub=)

-Wabisabi

"Everyone I spoke to was quite confused. Once I explained the situation, we absolutely had their support," she said. "It kind of backfired on Lake Cedar Group." Great! And I bet her so-called explanation was not biased or filled with inaccuracies or outright lies in any way! :rolleyes:

Will the FCC allow this or are they stuck?Hard to say. But even if they would, low-VHF has been problematic for DTV in the few areas where it's been tried. I suspect that was much of the reason KCNC elected to keep its digital frequency, inasmuch as the electric bill on channel 4 would have been much lower.

OT Warning:

Are the Avs in HD anywhere tonight??

Since I have D*, I don't know what an HD Av's game is... :(

Oh crap... Top of the page... Sorry.

I don't know when exactly it happened, but sCARE has updated their web site (http://www.c-a-r-e.org) with some "Myths" and "Facts"

But it looks like they got their "Myths" and "Facts" headers mixed up. :confused:

Altitude said they were on Alt HD last night, but I don't know what provider carries it. Did anyone see the game on Alt HD?

Are the AVS going to be NBC's HD game on Sunday?

I am not 100% positive, but based upon my neighbors, Comcast carries the Altitude HD feed. I have E* and they do not and I don't believe D* does either.

I was at the game and saw numerous HD cameras, just no info on who was broadcasting it, sorry.

Altitude-HD is only on Comcast. Boo D*.

Sunday's NBC-HD game is not Avs/Stars. I don't remember which game for sure is HD, but it's two east-coast teams (again).

Must be Flyers-Sabres. That's the other NBC game. I almost wish I could get that game to see Forsberg play again in HD.

Altitude-HD is only on Comcast. Boo D*.

Sunday's NBC-HD game is not Avs/Stars. I don't remember which game for sure is HD, but it's two east-coast teams (again).

To clarify this, Comcast shows only the HOME Avalanche and Nuggets games in HD. They do so on channel 665, the INHD2 channel. They essentially disconnect from the INHD network and connect to Altitude HD for the duration of the game and post-game show.

They also show baseball and hockey games on INHD1, channel 664, though not for our local teams. Apparently there are blackout restrictions due to other contractual obligations.

Must be Flyers-Sabres. That's the other NBC game. I almost wish I could get that game to see Forsberg play again in HD.
Trust me, you didn't miss much today. The Flyers were pretty much outplayed the whole game. On the other hand,
"How 'bout them Avs?"
:D

Anybody seen the new LCG TV spots yet?

Today I had an interesting conversation with a person at KTVD(UPN-20) engineering. My main question was: Why can I receive your station better than the rest of the RP stations? Right off, he indicated that he thought it was the brand of antenna, and possibly the 'beam tilt' of the antenna. I then told him that KRMA was the 2nd best. He that that figures, they use the same brand of antenna. The other RP stations use a different brand. Hmmmm. He also indicated that all of the antennas are at about the same height above the building(I remember 16').

He also told me of a plan that has been floated to build a tower on top of RP that all of the stations could use. He indicated that the reason was that if the antennas were higher off the building, the stations' could increase their power, and then possibly use it as their backup location(after analog goes away). Apparently, post 9/11, the FCC is a bit more concerned about backup systems.

I say bring it on. Better coverage for RP stations, and a decent backup facility. This possibility may be the best shot that some of us have for HD before 2009.
....jc

Today I had an interesting conversation with a person at KTVD(UPN-20) engineering. My main question was: Why can I receive your station better than the rest of the RP stations? Right off, he indicated that he thought it was the brand of antenna, and possibly the 'beam tilt' of the antenna. I then told him that KRMA was the 2nd best. He that that figures, they use the same brand of antenna. The other RP stations use a different brand. Hmmmm. He also indicated that all of the antennas are at about the same height above the building(I remember 16').

He also told me of a plan that has been floated to build a tower on top of RP that all of the stations could use. He indicated that the reason was that if the antennas were higher off the building, the stations' could increase their power, and then possibly use it as their backup location(after analog goes away). Apparently, post 9/11, the FCC is a bit more concerned about backup systems.

I say bring it on. Better coverage for RP stations, and a decent backup facility. This possibility may be the best shot that some of us have for HD before 2009.
....jc

I hope no one from (S)CARE reads that or they will suddenly think it is an alternative site and Lookout is not necessary.

I hope no one from (S)CARE reads that or they will suddenly think it is an alternative site and Lookout is not necessary.
If they are that stupid, so be it. Even with a short tower, the transmission output would be far below high power. Suitable only for backup operations.

As I see it their(sCARE's) coup is failing, and there will be towers on Lookout forever.
....jc

I hope no one from (S)CARE reads that or they will suddenly think it is an alternative site and Lookout is not necessary.
Of course RP is in a rural location with no residents nearby, so no reason for anyone to worry about radiation levels THERE.

Today I had an interesting conversation with a person at KTVD(UPN-20) engineering. My main question was: Why can I receive your station better than the rest of the RP stations? Right off, he indicated that he thought it was the brand of antenna, and possibly the 'beam tilt' of the antenna. I then told him that KRMA was the 2nd best. He that that figures, they use the same brand of antenna. The other RP stations use a different brand. Hmmmm. He also indicated that all of the antennas are at about the same height above the building(I remember 16').



I live at 112th & Sheridan and have never been able to pick up KTVD. I receive all the other stations just fine. All at around 75 with a Dish 622. I have a CM4228 mounted on the side of the house and it is pointed to downtown Denver.
Tried last night get no signal not even a blip.

OK, I know this is OT, but I think it is only fitting that we dedicated a moment of silence in honor of the Detroit Red Wings and their fans who are in mourning tonight following the loss by their hockey team to Edmonton which eliminates them from the Stanley Cup Chase. A moment of silence please..........aw the heck with it. ROFLMAO
:D :eek: :p :D

:cool:

Has 19-1 (or 19-3 for that matter) gone off the air again? I've been missing it for the past few days, even rescanning every now and again.

Has anyone else noticed over the past few weeks that KMGH-DT is broadcating a 5.1 audio signal at all times? I know it's only true 5.1 during the ABC primetime shows, but I still thought it was curious. Is anyone else seeing (hearing) this, or is my Yamaha receiver going wacko?

As far as KTVD, they have had a rock solid signal here in central Denver everytime I have checked as of late. Watched a good portion of the Rockies/Marlins game on Sunday afternoon, and the signal (although obviously SD) was strong and steady.

Got an email from Steve Gray. The hot new TV spots will be finished next week. I will let everybody know when they start.

I was just going to ask about that. Thanks Ernie.

Did you guys (and gals) see that D* announced the latest 14 markets for local HD and Denver was not part of it. June 6 is our date.

Here are the new markets: Cincinnati
Austin, Texas
Albuquerque, N.M.
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Green Bay, Wis.
Greensboro, N.C.
Las Vegas
Madison, Wis.
Memphis, Tenn.
Portland, Maine
Portland, Ore.
Providence, R.I.
Reno, Nev.
San Antonio
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=575088#post575088


Reggie

Did you guys (and gals) see that D* announced the latest 14 markets for local HD and Denver was not part of it. June 6 is our date.
Reggie,
Down boy! These are the next set of markets after the June 6th markets.
....jc

Reggie,
Down boy! These are the next set of markets after the June 6th markets.
....jc
I know but those markets were not bigger than us right? And those guys can get OTA and many of us can not here.

Reggie

I know but those markets were not bigger than us right? And those guys can get OTA and many of us can not here.
I feel your pain(but worse). I live probably less than 10 miles from the Denver DMA, so by the time the C/S DMA(91-92?) gets HD LIL, it'll probably be more than a year. :mad:

That's why I think that the best chance a lot of us have for free OTA HD is a short tower on RP with a slight power boost. sCARE's greed has pretty much KO'd high power OTA till maybe the analog shutdown.

Long Live The Towers!

Did you guys (and gals) see that D* announced the latest 14 markets for local HDLocal downressed "HD Light," if you please… :D

I guess the Denver stations could go ahead and "flash-cut" to DTV at any time (with FCC approval). That would really get peoples' attention.

Here, once again, is a picture of the antenna farm on top of RP...

Tim

Local downressed "HD Light," if you please… :D
Has it been confirmed that it is downrezzed in the MPEG4 formats from the new satellites? I haven't kept up on the D* local threads, but I thought the early stations that came online were pretty much full bandwidth and much better quality than the national stations on D*.

John,

I've been in and out of those threads, but unless something has changed recently folks have been saying that the pq of the hd locals is very good. The thing I read most often was, a little "softer" than OTA, but very good. We'll see I guess.

Here, once again, is a picture of the antenna farm on top of RP...

Tim

SOMEBODY SAVE THOSE TWO FROM THE RADIATION BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!! OH THE HUMANITY!

I continute to have problems with KTVD as, apparently, so do Code4Code5 and Lawood, although maybe for different reasons. I lost KTVD's signal last week. As of the past few days, I get a good lock with my Insignia HDTV's tuner and my E* 811 but my E* 211 shows a relatively strong signal of about 82 but will not lock the signal. I do get guide info, though, so I can't figure out what the problem is. Don't know if it's a problem with the 211 or KTVD's PSIP. Anyone else experience anything similar?

Also, I noticed that KFCT out of Ft. Collins never has any guide info. It just shows up as "digital program" on all of my receivers. I watch Fox on KFCT rather than KDVR because I receive a more stable signal (don't know why, it's much further away) and I don't have to rotate my antenna towards Lookout (convenience). Does anyone know if KFCT's PSIP programming info is messed up? I have never received guide info from this station.

Finally, although this is not related to any OTA issue, FWIW, I noticed that I receive almost all of the Voom channels from E* on my 811, which is only MPEG 2. Apparently, E* has only converted a few (2-3) of them to MPEG 4 so far.

I've been receiving KTVD without issues. I have an outdoor DB2 antenna from
Antennas Direct and a Samsung SIR-T451 OTA tuner. Signal has been strong.
I watched part of Veronica Mars and King of Queens last night without problems.
I'm at Holly & County Line.

Some referenced this document and I am not sure what does this mean?

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-801A2.pdf

I think it means waivers for satellite providers but I am confused as usual. Help anyone?

Some referenced this document and I am not sure what does this mean?

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-801A2.pdf

I think it means waivers for satellite providers but I am confused as usual. Help anyone?
Damn, FCC! :mad:

SHREVA is really shafting the consumers. What this puppy is, is the stations that have been granted waivers that allow them to deny HD DNS due to digital signal tests becoming active on 04/30(a few days ago). In other words, you can't get a digital signal test for that station because of the waiver.

I also found this little goody which may apply to me:
``(ix) SPECIAL WAIVER PROVISION FOR TRANSLATORS.--Upon request by a television translator station, the Commission may grant, for not more than 3 years, a waiver with respect to such station to the beginning of testing under clause (vii), and prohibit subscribers from receiving digital signal strength testing with respect to such station, if the Commission determines that the translator station is not broadcasting a digital signal due to one or more of the following:
``(I) frequent occurrence of inclement weather; or
``(II) mountainous terrain at the transmitter tower location.
I have a Fox translator 2 miles away. :(
....jc

Oh so it is the opposite of what I thought....argh

Has it been confirmed that it is downrezzed in the MPEG4 formats from the new satellites? I haven't kept up on the D* local threads, but I thought the early stations that came online were pretty much full bandwidth and much better quality than the national stations on D*.Given all the time and effort the satellite companies have spent defending "HD Light" as HD, I can't imagine them going for resolution over capacity.

Or, if they are willing to downres the HD channels they're charging extra for as an HD tier, they're not going to send out full resolution HD locals.

Given all the time and effort the satellite companies have spent defending "HD Light" as HD, I can't imagine them going for resolution over capacity.

Or, if they are willing to downres the HD channels they're charging extra for as an HD tier, they're not going to send out full resolution HD locals.

I think it depends entirely upon how much capacity is available to them. With the spot beams used for the locals as well as Ka-Band availablity, D* capacity may not be a big issue (at least for a while), once everyone is using the MPEG4 receivers with the new dish and feeds. The current national HD signals are all using the limited capacity older technology, hence the desire to downrez to provide channel capacity at least by D*. I am quite sure that D* was hoping no one would notice and they could use that low rez scheme forever. Luckily, people have called their bluff. Given the issue of bandwidth, every type of provider will at some point have a capacity problem, the hope is that at least one compeititor will have enough so the others won't be able to stay downrezzed and compete. FWIW, you may not even be getting full rez with OTA if the stations suddenly find a way to make multi-casting a cash cow. It is also true (just as with SD) that people with smaller screens may never see the difference anyway. The group here in AVS is obviously not a typical cross-section of the consumer population.

Not to dwell too far OT here, what was the date and time published yet when Judge Jackson is supposed to hear or rule on the tower case? Does anyone know if the hearing will be in open court?

Appeals Court Reverses Jeffco TV Tower OK
County Commissioners Instructed To Reconsider Approval


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9160837/detail.html

Appeals Court Reverses Jeffco TV Tower OK
County Commissioners Instructed To Reconsider Approval


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9160837/detail.html


And here it is in the Post : http://www.denverpost.com/ci_3785143?source=rss

What a sad day for digital in the Denver DMA!

# Matt

The text of the full opinion can be found HERE (http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=5585 )

-Wabisabi

And here it is in the Post : http://www.denverpost.com/ci_3785143?source=rss

What a sad day for digital in the Denver DMA!

# Matt

The consolidated tower is dead, long live the existing towers!

At least that explains why KRMA hadn't turned any dirt yet for their new tower. Wonder what the odds are the current commissioners will OK the KRMA plan now? Zero, or None??

Now if the commisioners would just deny a tower application for someone on Squaw and (S)CARE can shut off communications on the entire front range. What a great day in Colorado history. I must admit as a native of 'these here parts', I have never been more proud.....NOT! :mad:

Late Edit: I guess CEB II is right, "What you see is what you get!" (WYSIWYG)

At least that explains why KRMA hadn't turned any dirt yet for their new tower.

Actually, I don't understand why they did not rush to complete the structure. There was no injunction in place, was there?

Maybe there was too much risk that they would have to remove it?

It's been over 3 years since the approval!

Mark

:( Back to [] 1.

The text of the full opinion can be found HERE (http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=5585 )

-Wabisabi

gloating again?

Time to invest in Cable and Satellite TV companies.....Oh, and don't forget Sirius and XM :mad: .

Wonder when Scare is going to go after cellular and public safety's towers???

I was thinking (with my always twisted mind) LCG should propose an application on Squaw for the biggest, ugliest tower ever built, just to get them to say... uh, no. This way sCARE can't keep throwing the Squaw card down every chance they get, like a freakin' Ace.

I was thinking (with my always twisted mind) LCG should propose an application on Squaw for the biggest, ugliest tower ever built, just to get them to say... uh, no. This way sCARE can't keep throwing the Squaw card down every chance they get, like a feakin' Ace.

I don't think it matters, As long as it is called a TOWER, sCARE will oppose it. Maybe LCG should call it an ERECTION, Then we will here them scream! :rolleyes:

The clock is ticking...

1,020 Days to Analog Shutdown

Or, 1,020 days until the entire front range can get OTA DTV!

Blimps.

That's the answer....

BLIMPS.

Hi everyone

Forgive me for the newbie questions as I was just referred to this message board by a friend earlier in the week. I've done some reading in previous threads but still had a couple quick questions.

I have a Sony HD LCD television and as everyone has pointed out can't receive local channels broadcasted in Denver thru my dish (D* service) -thus haven't purchased a HD DVR yet. Went to Best Buy again by Park Medows on Monday and the kid showed me the tv's in the Magnolia room - running off of direct tv satellite, and showed me local channels were being broadcasted and said I shouldnt have a problem and it was available. However, like all the conflicting info I've heard from both retailers and D* over the past year, came back and called D* to check the status and they told me June 06.

So just curious how confident customers with D* service are - with having local HD channels broadcasted and available thru their dish in a couple of weeks? I've been holding out for nearly a year now trying to remain loyal to D* but hoping HD local channels would be available long ago. I've read up on outdoor antennas but dont really know much about it, let alone installing one (not to mention what my anal HOA assocation would think) - so I'm hoping June is the final date and we will see something available?!?

Also - real quick, the HD-DVR model for direct tv I've see online and in stores is the HR10-250. Will this be the same receiver -capable of receiving HD local channels once D* is up to speed and broadcasting the Denver Metro area or are they releasing a new one? Dont want to jump ahead of myself and purchase the wrong DVR.

Thanks again for your help
-Eric

Hi everyone

Forgive me for the newbie questions as I was just referred to this message board by a friend earlier in the week. I've done some reading in previous threads but still had a couple quick questions.

I have a Sony HD LCD television and as everyone has pointed out can't receive local channels broadcasted in Denver thru my dish (D* service) -thus haven't purchased a HD DVR yet. Went to Best Buy again by Park Medows on Monday and the kid showed me the tv's in the Magnolia room - running off of direct tv satellite, and showed me local channels were being broadcasted and said I shouldnt have a problem and it was available. However, like all the conflicting info I've heard from both retailers and D* over the past year, came back and called D* to check the status and they told me June 06.

So just curious how confident customers with D* service are - with having local HD channels broadcasted and available thru their dish in a couple of weeks? I've been holding out for nearly a year now trying to remain loyal to D* but hoping HD local channels would be available long ago. I've read up on outdoor antennas but dont really know much about it, let alone installing one (not to mention what my anal HOA assocation would think) - so I'm hoping June is the final date and we will see something available?!?

Also - real quick, the HD-DVR model for direct tv I've see online and in stores is the HR10-250. Will this be the same receiver -capable of receiving HD local channels once D* is up to speed and broadcasting the Denver Metro area or are they releasing a new one? Dont want to jump ahead of myself and purchase the wrong DVR.

Thanks again for your help
-Eric

Most reviews of D* local service (in other areas, obviously) have been good. OTA quality is probably slightly better, but most people probably won't notice.

The local channels will be compressed using MPEG-4. The HR10-250 doesn't support this compression, so you won't be able to pick up local channels with this box (although it will record the channels OTA if you hooked up an antenna). D* doesn't have a MPEG-4 capable DVR at the moment, latest rumors are sometime in the fall.

Appeals Court Reverses Jeffco TV Tower OK
County Commissioners Instructed To Reconsider Approval


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9160837/detail.html

So this is about Mt. Morrison, not Lookout, and it does appear that things were done a bit, uh, 'off'...what does this have to do with Lookout and the consolidation there?

Tim

Most reviews of D* local service (in other areas, obviously) have been good. OTA quality is probably slightly better, but most people probably won't notice.

The local channels will be compressed using MPEG-4. The HR10-250 doesn't support this compression, so you won't be able to pick up local channels with this box (although it will record the channels OTA if you hooked up an antenna). D* doesn't have a MPEG-4 capable DVR at the moment, latest rumors are sometime in the fall.

Thanks Squidboy for the clarification, I dont know if I can hold out till fall for the Mpeg-4 receiver - I guess I need to start looking into antennas and what I can rig up in the meantime. Thanks again, I appreciate it.

So just curious how confident customers with D* service are - with having local HD channels broadcasted and available thru their dish in a couple of weeks? ...called D* to check the status and they told me June 06.
D* has pretty much been right on with their local HD rollout in other parts of the US, so no reason to doubt that they won't be close to being on schedule in the Denver DMA.


Also - real quick, the HD-DVR model for direct tv I've see online and in stores is the HR10-250. Will this be the same receiver -capable of receiving HD local channels once D* is up to speed and broadcasting the Denver Metro area or are they releasing a new one?
Definitely not. The local HD signals through satellite will be broadcast in mpeg4 format only. The HR10-250 is only capable of decoding HD in mpeg2 format. D* is planning the release of their new HR20 DVR mpeg4 capable receiver sometime soon, but no one seems to know exactly when. D* says sometime in mid-summer, however many seem to think it will not be released until as late as the end of the year. Also the new receiver will not be running TIVO software. If you want to receive the new HD locals in mpeg4 as soon as they become available your only choice now is D*'s H20 which is mpeg4 capable, but is only a stand alone receiver... no DVR, you can't record programs on it.

Or, 1,020 days until the entire front range can get OTA DTV!
exactly. and it'll serve the b******s in Golden right.

Actually, I don't understand why they did not rush to complete the structure. There was no injunction in place, was there?

Maybe there was too much risk that they would have to remove it?

It's been over 3 years since the approval!

Mark

I certainly had not heard of any injunction not to start building. My guess is you are right, they just didn't want to run the risk of building and then having to tear it down. Much like the other stations, I don't think they were in any rush to get started for financial reasons either. I do feel a bit 'sold down the river' by KRMA since they asked for our support to help get their building approval for Morrison by telling us it would get them online much sooner and without the issues the LCG was facing. Now we find out they have pretty much known for several years they could not, or at least wouldn't want to start building even on Morrison.

Ernie, I somewhat like your comment about offering to build the tallest and most ugly tower you could imagine for Squaw. I would also propose they use additional power levels to help the signal reach some of the shadowed areas along the front range. Not only would (S)CARE and Golden scream about the eyesore, they would have to defend the local neighbors near Squaw from the significantly increased power levels they would be exposed to. It would be hysterical to watch (S)CARE squirm trying to prove that a tower on Squaw would simply be unacceptable.

Some referenced this document and I am not sure what does this mean?

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-801A2.pdf

I think it means waivers for satellite providers but I am confused as usual. Help anyone?

Well I read the extended version. :
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-801A1.pdf


It turns out that channel 7 was to late in submitting so they can't deny the tests. Well I called them up and yes I got a waiver!!! :) I know it is hd-lite on D* but at least I am not tied to "7" for at least right now.

It turns out that channel 7 was to late in submitting so they can't deny the tests. Well I called them up and yes I got a waiver!!! :) I know it is hd-lite on D* but at least I am not tied to "7" for at least right now.
Congrats Colofan! I hope it lasts, however I have seen where once HD LIL is turned on, D* tells people that they will lose their DNS. :confused:

I have requested a digital signal test for KXRM(Fox) in the Springs. We'll have to see what happens. I expect them to find a reason to deny it(translator issue posted earlier). However, thanks to KDVR's antenna 'tweak' I may be ok w/o the chumps(KDVR).
....jc


Long Live The Towers!

Forum vets,

I live just Southeast of E470/Smokey Hill - way Southeast Aurora. I only get Fox, WB, KBDI OTA. I have no line of sight to Republic. Do I have any hope of getting Republic signal if I upgrade antennas? What about signal from the Springs?

Any input would help before I take the plunge and upgrade receivers with D*.

I can give you a definitive...maybe. I am about 15 miles farther out than you are (just outside of Elizabeth) and receive all the RP stations with a CM4228 antenna on a 15' mast using a CM7777 preamp BUT I am at 6500 ft. Your area according to Google earth is at around 6000 ft. I dont know how much advantage the elevation gives me but I know it is significant. Another member lives between us and gets 7 and 9 with an attic mount antenna but he is almost as high as I am

The text of the full opinion can be found HERE (http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=5585 )

-Wabisabi

The developers made 'major' changes after public testimony. All changes must be made with 21 days of notice before public hearing.

The planning commission did not determine "that no existing telecommunications site is available ". The developers gave 'unconvincing' data Squaw was not adequate and no data other sites.

Apparently master plans are now binding on the planning commission - they "must find the PUD is in general conformity with any master plan or comprehensive plan for the county or municipality". This was not addressed.

"In view of our conclusions, we need not address CARE’s remaining contentions."

"Due to the efforts of a small group of people(sCARE) we are prevented from reaching our intended audience. Therefore, for the next week(during football season), we will only be providing our signals via our low power tansmission facilities. No cable, no satellite. We are sorry for the inconvenience that this action may cause, however until this situation is resolved, we simply have no choice."
Sincerely,
KCNC, KMGH, KUSA, and KTVD

I think that this action would wake some people up....


Long Live The Towers!

Another night of a little bit of weather in the metro area and KBDI (Squaw mtn) analog and digital have been out all night. DirecTV even has a slide up that says "don't call us".

This is what you would get if the other stations moved up there!!! - Unacceptable!!!!

Too bad there isn't some sex or sleaze involved in all of this. Then, it would make a great "investigative report" for one of the national networks' prime time newsmags.

You mean like a JeffCo commissioner caught on film with a member of sCARE at the sleazy Bug's Bunny motel on West Colfax? OK, what do we need to do? I got a camera. ;)

Seriously, I don't think there is anything left for us to do, outside of waiting on JJ's decision in July. Even then if he upholds the commissioners decision, sCARE might come up with another cockamanny legal loophole just like with Mt Morrision, to throw out the former commissioners LCGII 3-0 approval in 2004.

Maybe we should start discussing what happens after both JJ rules against LCGII, Golden steals the land, and sCARE somehow wins the lawsuit to stop digital 'same-service' broadcasting from the existing towers on Lookout. What's next for OTA TV?

Seriously, I don't think there is anything left for us to do, outside of waiting on JJ's decision in July. Even then if he upholds the commissioners decision, sCARE might come up with another cockamanny legal loophole just like with Mt Morrision, to throw out the former commissioners LCGII 3-0 approval in 2004.

Maybe we should start discussing what happens after both JJ rules against LCGII, Golden steals the land, and sCARE somehow wins the lawsuit to stop digital 'same-service' broadcasting from the existing towers on Lookout. What's next for OTA TV?

Certainly would be 'nice' to know what the LCG stations have as Plan C - and waiting until the last minute to do anything and knee-jerk reactions have clearly not worked well for them. I think it would have been much tougher to reverse a zoning/construction decision after the KRMA tower was built than just reversing a piece of paper - but foot-dragging appears to have been the approach all along - and one that is now costing them dearly. Unfortunately I only have another question in reply to your question. I don't know much about laws, but it seems from this that local overrides national (I can't wait until some neighboring county allows the sale of guns and drugs. I could stare at my blank screen and imagine I'm actually watching something and maybe get my former wife to 'move' here (or maybe just her 'service' address) since murder is legal in my county). Is there a possibility that nothing continues to happen - i.e., what chances are there that Denver is locally exempt from the transition law just as they got exemption from the mandates - and analog continues from Lookout and digital continues from RP?

...Is there a possibility that nothing continues to happen - i.e., what chances are there that Denver is locally exempt from the transition law just as they got exemption from the mandates - and analog continues from Lookout and digital continues from RP?
Unless they move the transition date(national), analog is dead on 02/17/09(1,018 days).

What I think could happen is that on or before 01/01/08 the FCC finally steps in and issues an order. We really don't care about your little squabbles, you(LCG) will be OTA with a high power digital signal ASAP, and here's what you'll do. End of story. Of course this is with the blessing of all of our Colorado 'representatives' who've been wined & dined and forced to make a decision.

The FCC can't and won't let a large metro area such as Denver miss the deadline. Won't happen.

It's be interesting to see(if the FCC has to get involved) what their decision is. A new tower somewhere, or just retrofit the existing towers. Either way, I'm sure that sCARE was hoping to have this resolved(in their favor of course) long before the Feds stepped in.

Long Live The Towers!

Nothing would make me happier than watching sCARE, Golden and JeffCo all get C-R-U-S-H-E-D like a bug by the FCC. I hope they do step in and allow the LCG stations to do whatever they require (including changing equipment/antennas too) to continue broadcasting from Lookout into eternity.

We'll have to then have another B-B-Q party at KCNC's tower site. (The last one was fun)

I just got a new Toshiba 50HP95 plasma. I'm able to pick up all of the OTA channels with an indoor antenna, except for KRMA-DT (PBS channel 6-1). I don't get anything at all. I've tried two different antennas, and moving around to various places, but absolutely nothing. Do I need to go to an outdoor antenna to get it? I live in Stapleton. Thanks in advance!

Nothing would make me happier than watching sCARE, Golden and JeffCo all get C-R-U-S-H-E-D like a bug by the FCC. I hope they do step in and allow the LCG stations to do whatever they require (including changing equipment/antennas too) to continue broadcasting from Lookout into eternity.

We'll have to then have another B-B-Q party at KCNC's tower site. (The last one was fun)

Why not have the B-B-Q on the road in front of Deb's house!!! We could get a permit to hang a giant "You Lose" sign and a permit for a live radio rig to play "We are the Champions" until 9 pm. Then we could do the same in front of the Goldens Mayoral offices.

Please FCC, "hook a brotha' up!"

-Matt

You know - this might sound strange to some of you, but my first thought when I read the Mt Morrison decision was that it actually is good for LCG because "there is no viable alternative" - IOW - SCARE shot themselves in the foot over Morrison and now they will be forced to live with Lookout.

Or am I missing something ?

Another night of a little bit of weather in the metro area and KBDI (Squaw mtn) analog and digital have been out all night. DirecTV even has a slide up that says "don't call us".

This is what you would get if the other stations moved up there!!! - Unacceptable!!!!

... And KBDI still remains MIA.

... And KBDI still remains MIA.
Maybe your post did the trick! :p

At 12:15 KBDI(12-1, 2, 3) coming in fine down here.
....jc

I just found this article. Kind of eerily close to LCG/Golden. All you have to do is exchange the word Walmart with LCG.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/05/HERCULES.TMP

This sentence really hits home...
"Many residents of the city who we've talked to are frustrated and anxious for this much-needed retail project to move forward.''

...It turns out that channel 7 was to late in submitting so they can't deny the tests. Well I called them up and yes I got a waiver!!! :) I know it is hd-lite on D* but at least I am not tied to "7" for at least right now.
This is actually pretty good news. At least 1 of the LCG now has the initiative to improve their low power situation. They absolutely hate to give out waivers. Maybe this will lead to a higher power(read short tower) on RP. If they improve their coverage area, they don't have to give out as many waivers. It would be good for all of the RP stations to improve coverage. After all, a high power solution is probably years away.
....jc


Long Live The Towers!

I just got a new Toshiba 50HP95 plasma. I'm able to pick up all of the OTA channels with an indoor antenna, except for KRMA-DT (PBS channel 6-1). I don't get anything at all. I've tried two different antennas, and moving around to various places, but absolutely nothing. Do I need to go to an outdoor antenna to get it? I live in Stapleton. Thanks in advance!

Channel 6 is usually one of the strongest. You may be able to add it manually.
Just remember its digital channel is 18. Its alias is 6.1.
Typically since you can receive the other stations from Republic Plaza you should be
able to receive KRMA.

Good Luck

I just found this article. Kind of eerily close to LCG/Golden. All you have to do is exchange the word Walmart with LCG.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/05/HERCULES.TMP


Walmart vs. LCG - I love it! Let the race begin! :) :) :) :cool:

What I think could happen is that on or before 01/01/08 the FCC finally steps in and issues an order. We really don't care about your little squabbles, you(LCG) will be OTA with a high power digital signal ASAP, and here's what you'll do. End of story. Of course this is with the blessing of all of our Colorado 'representatives' who've been wined & dined and forced to make a decision.

The FCC can't and won't let a large metro area such as Denver miss the deadline. Won't happen.Long Live The Towers!

The 10th Amendment may make this difficult, especially if Golden chooses to litigate an FCC order. The USSC is very much a "states rights" court, and is likely to be for many decades to come.

Channel 6 is usually one of the strongest. You may be able to add it manually.
Just remember its digital channel is 18. Its alias is 6.1.
Typically since you can receive the other stations from Republic Plaza you should be
able to receive KRMA.

Good Luck
Thanks for the info! I mucked around with the setup and finally got it to work. I'm not even sure exactly what I did to get it to work, but it's working now. This is my first HDTV so I'm still learning.

I have another question about the TVGOS. I never seem to get any info for 9-1 (NBC HD), but I do get info for analog channel 9. Is anyone else out there with TVGOS getting info for 9-1?

Forum vets,

I live just Southeast of E470/Smokey Hill - way Southeast Aurora. I only get Fox, WB, KBDI OTA. I have no line of sight to Republic. Do I have any hope of getting Republic signal if I upgrade antennas? What about signal from the Springs?

Any input would help before I take the plunge and upgrade receivers with D*.

Daroah,

I live in the same area as you, probably a bit further North. I live closer to Quincy and E-470 then Smoky Hill. Anyway, with just a regular Silver Sensor antenna mounted in my living room (which as a huge window that faces due West) on top of the entertainment center (7' tall) I can get everything from Republic, Lookout, and Squaw. Initially I had trouble with the earlier tuners, but the ATSC tuner in the new Dish 622 receiver is able to get them all with more then 80% signal strength.

I have never tried to pick up Colorado Springs.

A lot of it might be your tuner too.

Steve

Letter today in the RMN. Is it just me or do I not understand what the writer is trying to say? The towers are zoned LEGAL, Non-conforming. The first word (Missing in his letter) in the zoning description is a key one.

Are broadcast towers on mountain illegal?

Is the city of Golden on level ground, or is it on a slippery slope in seeking to use its powers of eminent domain ("Eminent domain invoked for site of planned tower," Briefing, April 13) to gain control of Lake Cedar Group's land on Lookout Mountain - or are the TV towers there illegally?

Although I agree with LCG's counsel, Marv Rockford, that Lookout Mountain is the most convenient site for the efficient broadcasting of television signals, residents believe that the towers emit radiation that is dangerous to nearby residents, and possibly illegal. No municipality would allow radiation-emitting equipment to be in as close proximity, and at the same altitude as hundreds of the homes that surround it.

The erection of the towers was executed - after most of the land was platted and many residences already occupied - on a "noncomforming basis," which meant that the presence of those towers at that location was supposed to have been temporary, and that any modifications or additions to the towers or related equipment required approval. To my knowledge, few if any of the necessary approvals have ever been sought or granted.

R. Kiefer
Arvada

All of this wording is all Jeffco zoning. Here are the FACTS:

The towers were up there before zoning was in place.
The towers are not going anywhere.
Yes, they are legal.
It is Jeffco's "same-service" is their wordage, not LCG's. It is Jeffco
that says analog and digital is not the same service.
It is sCARE that has sued Jefferson County several times.


If you go onto sCARE's web site that read all of their LIES, yes LIES.
They say that one of the towers up there is illegal. Yes it was, and channel 9 removed the doppler radar. It's so small you can't even see it, the tower that is.
One after another of their "arguments" has been either dis-proven or was an outright LIE.

Ernie, I suggest you add a FACT/MYTH page to your Denver DTV page..
Also, can you add that the digital UPN channel has been added to Comcast?

The 10th Amendment may make this difficult, especially if Golden chooses to litigate an FCC order. The USSC is very much a "states rights" court, and is likely to be for many decades to come.

Would it be safe to say that the path of least resistance (highest probability) would be a message from LCG to the state legislature and/or FCC that says "If you force digital on us, you force us off the air!". Would then it be safe to surmise that the path of least resistance from the legislature and FCC be "Okay Denver, you are exempt from the digital transition." ? Lookout for us will be "Lookout for that herd of cows!" How safe would the RP toy transmitters be from the bean counters then?

EDIT: How about some media coverage "Denver is poised to bypass the digital TV transition". Of course, I don't think this would happen with any LCG station, I think we stand alone.

The towers were up there before zoning was in place.
Isn't it a fact that the towers were considered "conforming" to zoning regulations until 2002 when they changed the zoning? It seems like sCARE seems to have forgotten this fact.
The towers are not going anywhere.
This is, IMHO, the most irrational part of the sCARE argument. They went from "we don't want LGC to add/change any towers" to "let's get them banished permanently!!" I don't know where they got the idea that there would ever be "zero" towers, but it's part of their doctrine now. sCARE, the Mayor, now has the expectation that there should be no towers. In fact, this was even evidenced back in Ernie's discussion with the spokesperson for the City of Golden.

Bottom line, I think they have short memories, and now the groupthink is that it's their diety-given right to get rid of the towers.

There's a lot of ugly crap on mountain/hill tops here in Castle Rock (including that ugly ball house on Diamond Ridge), but I knew that when I moved here. And, it doesn't mean that it should all come down despite what I think.

Like Pookers, I now enjoy full OTA HDTV in Castle Rock, but I'm pissed that I had to spend a few hundred bucks for it. And I can't wait for the nastygram from my HOA (despite me being right, that doesn't mean they won't harrass me) for my rooftop CM.

Isn't it a fact that the towers were considered "conforming" to zoning regulations until 2002 when they changed the zoning? It seems like sCARE seems to have forgotten this fact.
No, the current zoning has existed for quite some time (although not as long as the towers). The first proposal to change the zoning to allow fewer towers was denied back in 1999.

Well I read the extended version. :
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-801A1.pdf


It turns out that channel 7 was to late in submitting so they can't deny the tests. Well I called them up and yes I got a waiver!!! :) I know it is hd-lite on D* but at least I am not tied to "7" for at least right now.

Colofan ... can you detail the steps you took (who exactly did you call and what paperwork needed etc) to get ABC from D*. I can not receive any RP signals from SW Longmont and would like to add ABC from LA to my D* package.

# Matt

Colofan ... can you detail the steps you took (who exactly did you call and what paperwork needed etc) to get ABC from D*. I can not receive any RP signals from SW Longmont and would like to add ABC from LA to my D* package.

# Matt
Matt,
Just call D* and ask for a digital signal test. You may also be able to just call KMGH and ask for the waiver. SHREVA is really shafting all of us with their stupid bias toward the broadcasters.
1st they allowed broadcasters to just deny a waiver even if they aren't providing a viewable signal.
Then allowing them to deny digital signal tests because 'uh, sorry we just didn't get it done'. What a crock-o-bullsh!t.
....jc

Political comments removed.

Matt,
Just call D* and ask for a digital signal test. You may also be able to just call KMGH and ask for the waiver. SHREVA is really shafting all of us with their stupid bias toward the broadcasters.
....jc

Well I called D* "... blah blah ... we will get back to you within 45 days."

I guess I need to call the channel next. That will have to wait until tomorrow as their switchboard is closed now.

# Matt

Well I called D* "... blah blah ... we will get back to you within 45 days."
Hmmm, I called on 5/1 or 5/2(right after the digital test became effective), and my waiver paperwork arrived today. Oh, and make sure that you call the 'HD Team' (800) 263-0028.
....jc

Colofan ... can you detail the steps you took (who exactly did you call and what paperwork needed etc) to get ABC from D*. I can not receive any RP signals from SW Longmont and would like to add ABC from LA to my D* package.

# Matt

Well I called D* but all they were going to do was resubmit via the automated system. I called channel 7 directly and asked for the digital waiver person when she answered I pointed out about the new digital test being allowed and the fact that 7 failed to submit in time with the FCC. She didn't want to grant me a waiver but in the end she did and I received a letter from them two days later.

Really & doesn't have a choice since I could compel a test and they would lose and have to pay the test.

The waiver is revokable within a 14 day period but that would require them to spend more money as well. Until D* has a mpeg4 DVR I am hoping that I can hold onto this waiver.

Though channel 9 has this disallow waiver from the FCC I am going to be calling them later this week.

Oh and the CSR network specialist at D* didn't know about the new rules for dns digital......gave them the url to the fcc website....more people call the more likely to get waivers.

Yes returning to OTA I would rather get all these signals over the air but here we are.

OK, I know this is OT, but I think it is only fitting that we dedicated a moment of silence in honor of the Detroit Red Wings and their fans ...
I think we need a momemt for the AVS :( ... unless we can win 4 games in a row :rolleyes:.
According to rock-paper-scissors mentality, doesn't an Avalanche crush a Duck?!

I think we need a momemt for the AVS :( ... unless we can win 4 games in a row :rolleyes:.
According to rock-paper-scissors mentality, doesn't an Avalanche crush a Duck?!

I think the moment of silence is appropriate and acceptable at this point although the fat lady likely won't sing the her aria until Thursday.

As for an 'Avalanche crushing a Duck', not when the duck is too fast for the Avalanche to catch it.
Hey, at least we made it deeper in the playoffs than the Wings.


As for the TV side, it may be just as well, the HD version of Sundays game on NBC was awful. It was so soft, and so much of it was upconverted SD shots that it eases the pain of not seeing the Avs on NBC any more. I sure hope they get some better video equipment for the later round games.

As for the TV side, it may be just as well, the HD version of Sundays game on NBC was awful. It was so soft, and so much of it was upconverted SD shots that it eases the pain of not seeing the Avs on NBC any more. I sure hope they get some better video equipment for the later round games.

While I noticed the really soft picture, I didn't know that any of it was upconverted SD. Do you mean the studio shots & whatnot?

My SWAG is that most of the HD equipment is deployed at the NBA playoffs and they won't make it to the NHL until the later rounds. Of course, what do I know?

While I noticed the really soft picture, I didn't know that any of it was upconverted SD. Do you mean the studio shots & whatnot?

My SWAG is that most of the HD equipment is deployed at the NBA playoffs and they won't make it to the NHL until the later rounds. Of course, what do I know?
NBC isn't doing any NBA playoff games, that is ABC, what I was referring to was a few of the camera angles were so soft that they looked to be upconverts. AIn a thread on the programming page many viewers felt there were SD cameras cropped and upconverted and it is hard to argue with that looking at the quality. Regardless (since I have no way of actually knowing what they were doing), here's hoping they get better.

...It was so soft, and so much of it was upconverted SD shots that it eases the pain of not seeing the Avs on NBC any more. I sure hope they get some better video equipment for the later round games.
I hope this isn't a sign of things to come for Sunday Night Football next fall.

Letter today in the RMN. Is it just me or do I not understand what the writer is trying to say? The towers are zoned LEGAL, Non-conforming. The first word (Missing in his letter) in the zoning description is a key one.

It's not just you. Coherent communication hasn't been a strong point in any of the anti-tower faction's letters, including the op ed from the mayor.

While I noticed the really soft picture, I didn't know that any of it was upconverted SD. Do you mean the studio shots & whatnot?

My SWAG is that most of the HD equipment is deployed at the NBA playoffs and they won't make it to the NHL until the later rounds. Of course, what do I know?

No, they have all of their HD cams at the NASCAR races and probably will give those priority over the NFL games as well since that is the only thing anyone (not me) watches on NBC.

A question for the group.

Has anyone spoken to KUSA-TV 9 about why they don't broadcast the prime time programs (or any programs for that matter) in Dolby 5.1?

Thanks.

A question for the group.

Has anyone spoken to KUSA-TV 9 about why they don't broadcast the prime time programs (or any programs for that matter) in Dolby 5.1?

Thanks.

On Jan. 17th 2006 I sent an e-mail to Mark Cornetta at KUSA about this issue and all the mistakes they make when transitioning from HDTV to SD and how often someone in production forgets to "flip the switch" on the HD recorder (it was really bad that week).

Mark forwarded the e-mail to Don Perez, here is an excerpt from that e-mail

"We are reviewing plans to improve our HD redundancy and including upgrades such as 5.1 audio. There is a “chicken or the egg” factor in some of the decision process. We have made more investments in HD than anyone in this market even when very few people were able to “see” this investment. We are still one of only a handful of stations in the County doing HD news today.

There is a pragmatic business decision in how we balance additional investments versus the potential audience that currently can view that investment… some “chicken or the egg” factor. Having said that, I am confidant we will continue to make those investments to improve our quality and provide more HD programming. I certainly understand that it may not happen as fast you or I would like, but we will get there."

I think that this means that they have already spent a lot of money for something few of their viewers can use and they are unwilling to spend anymore $$$ until more viewers are available.

I would recommend that if you want DD 5.1( I sure do)you should drop Don or Mark an e-mail. They are both very quick to reply and are seem like nice guys.

The only way they will know that this is important to their HD viewers is to get lots of requests.

-Matt

No, they have all of their HD cams at the NASCAR races and probably will give those priority over the NFL games as well since that is the only thing anyone (not me) watches on NBC.

NBC is not broadcasting Nascar until the first of July so the lack of HD for the NHL is not becasue of that.

And since they will only have one NFL game and one track to be at in the fall on any Sunday, I would guess they have enough HD cams for both.

OT
Anyone hear that Qwest is offering HD service now, but only to the Highlands Ranch area? Can't find anything on their website. I've been away for a bit and haven't seen any postings on this. My neighbor is supposed to have it installed today. I will check it out this evening.

Yeah Qwest Choice TV is what they call it, pretty much only available in Highlands Ranch. There are two threads about it at broadbandreports.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15845007

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16007584

Everyone there that has posted is from Arizona, haven't seen any Colorado people talking about it.

Sounds like not very many people are aware of the new HD service Qwest is offering. I did a search on this forum and found nothing about it.

The conservative Independence Institute has issued a position paper on eminent domain and the tower issue (http://www.i2i.org/articles/IB-2006-E.pdf) .

(You can guess they're more than a little opposed to Golden's actions. :D )

Ironically enough, the Independence Institute is in Golden, so it would be hard for them to boycott Golden…

Ironically enough, the Independence Institute is in Golden, so it would be hard for them to boycott Golden…
Huh. They must be across the street from me. Their street address is only 81 away from my work address.

(over to Google Maps)

http://www.dr-mal.com/i2i.png

Yup. Spittin' distance.

Ironically enough, the Independence Institute is in Golden, so it would be hard for them to boycott Golden…Ironic it is! As my business is in Golden also. Maybe that's why biz is slow. I better drop my own Boycott... Not. ;)

The conservative Independence Institute has issued a position paper on eminent domain and the tower issue (http://www.i2i.org/articles/IB-2006-E.pdf) .

(You can guess they're more than a little opposed to Golden's actions. :D )

Ironically enough, the Independence Institute is in Golden, so it would be hard for them to boycott Golden…

Kucharsk, I have been to several Republican town hall meetings and fundraisers in Evergreen, Morrison and Golden with several customers who are NRA members. They are adamantly opposed to the new tower. This is not a politically agnostic issue. The reality is that the overwhelming majority in Jefferson County are Republicans.
Conservatives can hug trees just as good as Democrats. I am glad that someone is finally taking a stand from the right. maybe they can knock some sense into these people.

Let's just stipulatate that ignorance and selfishness can be found in abundance on both the left and right.

The case for the towers is compelling, IMHO, but different aspect of the case will resonate with different audiences. We need the Independence Institute emphasizing the eminent domain abuse, and perhaps someone on the left emphasizing the impact of forcing low-income families to buy cable.

The conservative Independence Institute has issued a position paper on eminent domain and the tower issue (http://www.i2i.org/articles/IB-2006-E.pdf) .

(You can guess they're more than a little opposed to Golden's actions. :D )

Ironically enough, the Independence Institute is in Golden, so it would be hard for them to boycott Golden…That's a very well written paper.

That's a very well written paper.Yeah, but who cares?

Yeah, but who cares? And John Caldera doesn't have the best reputation these days, especially after his out-of-control rants on Amendments C & D. Personally, I kinda' like him!Out of control they may have been, but Amendments C and D were useless; I'm just glad the voters had the sense to at least reject D.

(Amazing how that $3.7 billion "excess" the government would get to keep under C is now up to $4.5 billion and growing…)

As far as the earlier poster's discussion of Republicans against the tower, I find it hard to believe any of them would believe Golden's eminent domain filing is the way to go about it; if they do they must have filled out the wrong little circle on their voter registrations and should be sent to go live in Palm Beach County, FL. ;) )

I was down in Golden today and I parked on the street. This couple asked me why I have a Boycott Golden bumper sticker on my car. I told them the story of how the City is forcing a hostile take-over of private land up on Lookout Mt. And that this attempt would cost us Golden taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to fight a losing cause. And especially when the City is in financial trouble already.

They knew nothing about it and were disgusted that the city was wasting their money, and worse, when they could get the land for free! I think I turned two more, pro-tower. Maybe we should just have a big rally and tell everyone the 'real' facts. Or LCG should buy space on that big billboard on 6th ave heading west in Golden. That might spark interest in residents!

You know, I've been thinking about something..........
There's a big park near where I live. Lots of families and stuff out there on weekends and holidays.

I've thought about doing some impromptu "Free Fairs". Just a bunch of guys take their antennas, HDTVs, shortwave radios, "HD" radios, FTA satellite dishes, and set them up to play with. When people walk over to see what we are doing, we tell them all about what is being broadcast, for FREE and how easy it is to receive it. And, don't forget to tell them it's all legal, too.

Too many people think you have to pay to get TV and radio nowadays. Might be a way to get the message out about the Denver Tower controversy in your area.

I went to a friends house at 8th and Fox in downtown Denver yesterday. He had an HDTV with a tuner that he had never even bothered to hook up. He did have line of site out of a window to the RP building. The best we could do for an antenna was an old FM dipole antenna that came with a stereo receiver.

We hooked it up and surprisingly were able to receive digital 4, 6, 7, 9, 20, and 31. All were clear and drop out free except 9 which dropped in and out but was mostly in. At the same time using the same antenna, the analog channels were completely unwatchable.

It was pretty cool to be able to get HD using essentially a piece of wire and a balun and see how well this cruddy makeshift antenna worked with the ATSC signals. He thinks he has a pair of rabbit ears somewhere in the house. They're going to look pretty cool on top of that 42" plasma showing HD OTA!

Now if only I could do this in Fort Collins....

-Glen

I went to a friends house at 8th and Fox in downtown Denver yesterday. He had an HDTV with a tuner that he had never even bothered to hook up. He did have line of site out of a window to the RP building. The best we could do for an antenna was an old FM dipole antenna that came with a stereo receiver.

We hooked it up and surprisingly were able to receive digital 4, 6, 7, 9, 20, and 31. All were clear and drop out free except 9 which dropped in and out but was mostly in. At the same time using the same antenna, the analog channels were completely unwatchable.

It was pretty cool to be able to get HD using essentially a piece of wire and a balun and see how well this cruddy makeshift antenna worked with the ATSC signals. He thinks he has a pair of rabbit ears somewhere in the house. They're going to look pretty cool on top of that 42" plasma showing HD OTA!

Now if only I could do this in Fort Collins....

-Glen
Great story. :)

I'll bet there are a LOT of people out there with HD sets who are not even aware there is anything to receive OTA. Of course, as you mentioned, not everyone is that close to the RP either [thank you (S)CARE].

He thinks he has a pair of rabbit ears somewhere in the house. They're going to look pretty cool on top of that 42" plasma showing HD OTA!

What he really needs is a UHF antenna. Some "rabbit ears" had that built in, but others required a separate "loop" antenna.

It's too bad they don't make the famed Radio Shack Double Bow Tie any more...

It's too bad they don't make the famed Radio Shack Double Bow Tie any more...
And am I GLAD that I have one in a box for the day that full power digital transmissions start on Lookout!! Then I will remove my huge Yagi from my roof!

And am I GLAD that I have one in a box for the day that full power digital transmissions start on Lookout!! Then I will remove my huge Yagi from my roof!
Unfortnately, it is looking more and more like it will be on the VHF frequences for Channels 4, 6, 7 and 9 :( . And KWGN may revert to Channel 2 also if they cannot go full power on their big tower after the conversion on Channel 34.

Unfortnately, it is looking more and more like it will be on the VHF frequences for Channels 4, 6, 7 and 9 . And KWGN may revert to Channel 2 also if they cannot go full power on their big tower after the conversion on Channel 34.. I hope the each station files seperate counter lawsuits against sCARE and JeffCo for their attempts to stop them from broadcasting after the change-out. And then they B-L-E-E-D them dry by dragging the suits out for years and years with every damn legal trick, they can. I don't care that's it's my county and I may have to deal with potholes for the next century! They deserve it.

A few States that have television transmitters in locations that have rough weather. NORTH DAKOTA , SOUTH DAKOTA , MONTANA , WASHINGTON (state) , ARIZONA -,- the towers and transmitters on South Mountain just bake in the heat. Along the coast line of the USA the wind and salty air is a bit rough. I can go on and be a lot more specific. Transmitters , towers , antennas are all available that can with stand rough weather. Squaw Mountain is a very good place for the Digital Tv Transmitters.

A few States that have television transmitters in locations that have rough weather. NORTH DAKOTA , SOUTH DAKOTA , MONTANA , WASHINGTON (state) , ARIZONA -,- the towers and transmitters on South Mountain just bake in the heat. Along the coast line of the USA the wind and salty air is a bit rough. I can go on and be a lot more specific. Transmitters , towers , antennas are all available that can with stand rough weather. Squaw Mountain is a very good place for the Digital Tv Transmitters.I've heard those are all very nice places to live. Do you need help packing the U-Haul? Or do you have to wait until your house on Lookout Mountain sells? OH wait, you can't sell because of the depressed property values caused by those darn towers. sCAREry thought!

A few States that have television transmitters in locations that have rough weather. NORTH DAKOTA , SOUTH DAKOTA , MONTANA , WASHINGTON (state) , ARIZONA -,- the towers and transmitters on South Mountain just bake in the heat. Along the coast line of the USA the wind and salty air is a bit rough. I can go on and be a lot more specific. Transmitters , towers , antennas are all available that can with stand rough weather. Squaw Mountain is a very good place for the Digital Tv Transmitters.

WOW!!! How long did it take you to find this information, 20- 23 day?!?!? That was a real waste of your time as I am sure that many on this forum could have told you locations of many transmitters that are in "rough terrain".

Your argument for Squaw is useless (we all would welcome Squaw if it would get us HD faster) it will not provide ample coverage, no one wants the repeaters in THEIR neighborhoods anymore than sCARE (you) want the towers on Lookout. No one is interested in having 3, 4 or 5 different channel numbers for each station. You are a lunatic for not addressing our feedback 20 days ago and coming at us with this lame attempt at logic.

Bye Bye bone head.

Squaw Mountain is a very good place for the Digital Tv Transmitters.ntsc, how do you justify the tremendous fire danger on squaw? There is not one fire truck within 25 miles of the transmitter site there. Not to mention the road up to the site is completely impassable due to weather quite a bit of the year.

Do you really think this is still safer? With a forest blazes that can travel at 20 miles-an-hour, that danger is in my backyard in about 1-1/2 hours! Fire is a real danger as we all have seen in the past couple of years... opposed to RF which is not.

It's too bad they don't make the famed Radio Shack Double Bow Tie any more...

He has a lot of retro and antique electronic and mechanical things. That antenna would fit right in with his decor.

-Glen

He has a lot of retro and antique electronic and mechanical things. That antenna would fit right in with his decor.

-Glen

Isn't this it:

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103058&cp=2032057.2032187.2032189.2032204&parentPage=family

-Glen

A few States that have television transmitters in locations that have rough weather. NORTH DAKOTA , SOUTH DAKOTA , MONTANA , WASHINGTON (state) , ARIZONA -,- the towers and transmitters on South Mountain just bake in the heat. Along the coast line of the USA the wind and salty air is a bit rough. I can go on and be a lot more specific. Transmitters , towers , antennas are all available that can with stand rough weather. Squaw Mountain is a very good place for the Digital Tv Transmitters.

ntsc et. al.
The issue is not whether they could build a tower on Squaw. Of course they could if the residents around Squaw didn't organize to stop it. They could build a tower on top of Longs Peak if someone wanted to bad enough. (Of course paying a repair crew in the winter might be a tad more expensive than paying one to support Squaw, but not by that much). The problem is not "if" you can build it, the problem is can anyone receive a signal from there. The truth of the matter which no one from (S)CARE is willing to admit, is that with towers on Squaw, a large percentage of people, if not nearly everyone on the front range west of Wadsworth (including most of Golden) and north of the Boulder county line, and south of the Douglas county line would have little chance of receiving the signal. The only solution for that would be to place repeaters all up and down the front range which creates an even bigger nightmare and even more towers all up and down the front range where none exist now. Your solution is to replace one tower (the new LCG plan) on Lookout with likely 10-20 (assuming one for each station) towers along the front range as well as a tower in the back yard of the residents of Squaw where they do not exist now (except for a few stations like KBDI).

Frankly I am sorry you apparently bought your house on or near Lookout under the impression that the communication towers would someday be driven off, but I think you will just have to face the reality that "What you see is what you get". In 2009, the stations will convert to digital modulation to provide the same service they now provide in analog, as ordered by the FCC and there is nothing you can do about that. Since you won't allow a consolidation of towers on Lookout to reduce the visual 'blight' as well as reduce RF power levels in the immediate area, you will have to live with what is there forever. Enjoy your view and quit complaining. You will get what you and your friends at (S)CARE asked for, a lifetime sharing the view of the existing towers. Enjoy!

ntsc,
What's you thoughts on this senerio? What if the LCGII tower application goes down (likely) and the stations wait 'till the change-out (very likely) and JeffCo / sCARE lose their attempt to stop the broadcasters from using their existing facilities on Lookout (Even more likely)

Where will all you NIMBY's be then? Stuck forever with the current situation.

Isn't this it:

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103058&cp=2032057.2032187.2032189.2032204&parentPage=family

-Glen
That's it. I thought they weren't selling it any more. For $14.99 it is a real price performer, not to mention its art deco appearance.

A reply from Don Perez from KUSA regarding Dolby 5.1

>Thank you for your note. We currently do not have the
facilities for delaying 5.1 programming for this time zone. I expect to
have those capabilities before the end of this year... Again, thank
you for your note.<

Check next time there are a few inches of snow on Squaw mountain. KBDI is usually off the air until someone can get up there to brush off the dishes, like a couple of weeks ago.

Oh I forgot, you can't get KBDI in Golden.......

A reply from Don Perez from KUSA regarding Dolby 5.1
I too received a reply from Don. My questions were regarding better coverage from RP(especially since they'll be back broadcasting the NFL). Regarding RP: There are a number of limitations at that location that will limit our future coverage abilities.

He also mentioned God's gift to the Rocky Mountains, Golden, and their efforts to defeat a new tower. It sounds like they have all of their 'Eggs in the Lookout Basket', and that's where they'll stay. He also mentioned: The best solution is being allowed to build a new combined facility on Lookout Mtn. If we thought otherwise we would have moved ahead already.

So, for many of us, it looks like HD Sunday Night football will be from satellite or non-HD from analog sources. :mad:

I also emailed the FCC asking about the 'Denver Low Power Situation'. I received what looked like a canned response: 3 PDF attachments that dated back to '97 explaining how great HD will be. Sigh, I'm surprised that they didn't ask where Denver is. :o

Squaw Mountain is a very good place for the Digital Tv Transmitters.
I agree, as long as you want to limit your area of coverage! :eek: Were the towers on Lookout when you bought your house? I rest my case.
....jc

ntsc/pal/secam,

Your screen name includes all of the existing television transmission modes except ATSC. I wonder why?

I know this would cost advertising $'s, but in order to effectively deal with folks like you, if I had the decision making authority for the LCG stations along with KRMA and the digital stations it planned to host on its new tower (KPXC, etc.), I would cut off service to you and all of your Golden NIMBY neighbors immediately by pulling retransmission authority, both ATSC and NTSC, to select zip codes in the agreements with Comcast, D*, and E*. You can bet Golden's zip code would be on my list. You would then be forced to watch most major network programming (with the exception of Fox and WB) OTA, which is what most of us on this forum struggle to do, at least with digital reception. Then, instead of having one horrible, unsightly, dangerous, property value depressing tower on Lookout, you'd all have horrible, unsightly, dangerous, property value depressing OTA antennas on all of your houses pointing at multiple towers on Lookout. And you wouldn't have any alternative since you wouldn't qualify for distant locals on D* and E* and Comcast doesn't carry them.

Happy viewing!!!

Guy's, it's silly to even acknowledge ntsc/pal/secam/scarer. He/she won't answer. They can't because they're wrong and know it.

Guy's, it's silly to even acknowledge ntsc/pal/secam/scarer. He/she won't answer. They can't because they're wrong and know it.
I am guessing now he may be just a troll looking for a reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even live in the area. It seemed strange to start the argument by stating a tower could survive the bad weather on Squaw since the real issue is coverage and maintainance, not the ability to build there.

Guy's, it's silly to even acknowledge ntsc/pal/secam/scarer. He/she won't answer. They can't because they're wrong and know it.Here's the solution

Click here to add ntsc/pal/secam to your ignore list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=7596477)

Click here to REMOVE ntsc/pal/secam from your ignore list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/profile.php?do=removelist&userlist=ignore&u=7596477)

I don't want to put ntsc on my ignore list. It's totally entertaining to see what insipid comments/suggestions he makes.

Here's the solution

Click here to add ntsc/pal/secam to your ignore list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=7596477)

Click here to REMOVE ntsc/pal/secam from your ignore list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/profile.php?do=removelist&userlist=ignore&u=7596477)
I don't think there will be much more to ignore. It appears he will not return to defend his position, although given his original comment there isn't much there to defend. He did obviously succeed with what appears to be his original intent, which must have been to elicit a reaction.

ntsc has only posted twice and it usually takes 20 days or more between posts. He/she is probably looking around the internet for more "facts" about repeaters and how they are "MUCH" better at sending a signal in conjunction with Squaw than a consolidation tower on Lookout.

Come on you coward, Defend your position. My words may sound harsh but it seams that you are just interested in hiding after you post. Lets here what your position really is.

Are you Deb or Al from the CARE faction or are you genuinely interested in getting HD?

Tell us roughly were you live and lets discuss the likelihood that you will receive any HD from Squaw. Why won't you share any info with us so that we can better understand why you have taken this stand?

-Matt

Not to dwell too far OT here, what was the date and time published yet when Judge Jackson is supposed to hear or rule on the tower case? Does anyone know if the hearing will be in open court?

It sounds as though there will not be hearing. Judge Jackson is just going to make a paper based ruling.

It sounds as though there will not be hearing. Judge Jackson is just going to make a paper based ruling.
Throw it over the fence and then run for cover. Sounds like the best strategy to me too if I were in his shoes. No one really wants to be responsible for a decision on this one.

No one really wants to be responsible for a decision on this one.Well if he didn't want to be responsible for the decision he didn't have any business meddling in the first place. But I repeat myself.

Well if he didn't want to be responsible for the decision he didn't have any business meddling in the first place. But I repeat myself.
My understanding is he will make a decision. It is just that it will not be a hearing where the concerned parties will stand in front of him and present their case again. What could possibly be covered that hasn't already been covered over and over again. I am sure he has all the material from the BCC meetings which really is all he should need. What could possibly be missing. Surely nothing new would be allowed.
If you remember right this case is SCARE/City of Golden vs BCC. The problem is the judge has ruled that the BCC did not meet their requirements.
If he decides now that they have and goes by their latest decision nothing will change on the mountain except what you can't see. Actually not true you will see it on your TV. Digital OTA from Lookout Mountain.

Well if he didn't want to be responsible for the decision he didn't have any business meddling in the first place. But I repeat myself.
Judges don't like to be reviewed and especially don't like to be overturned by a higher court. There is no doubt whichever side loses will appeal to a higher court. He is really in a no win situation on this. Hopefully he will do the right thing and call the commissioners on their little charade. It would be nice to see him rule that the LCG did indeed present their case and the commissioners decisions were based outside of the boundaries he laid down. Of course, even if he said that you know (S)CARE will appeal. But then again, we repeat ourselves......
;)

sCARE's got a new website.

http://www.c-a-r-e.org/

I got a reply from Coor - I sent them a letter indicating how I was boycotting their beers because of the towers - and have gotten my friends to do so. There are a bunch of ex HP/Agilent and Audi drivers that meet at Jacksons every thursday and most of us were ordering Coors Lights - but now have switched to our local beer Fat Tire.

Dear Reginald:

Thanks for your e-mail and comments regarding the proposed TV towers on Lookout Mountain.

We understand your frustration with the city of Golden. While we wish any dispute to be resolved in a timely and professional manner, this is a matter for the city and its citizens to resolve. As a corporation, we only take positions on issues that directly impact our business and positions within the brewing industry.

We hope you understand our position, and that you will reconsider making Coors your beer of choice.

If you have other questions or comments, Reginald, please contact us again either by e-mail at coors.com or by calling the Consumer Information Center Hotline: 1-800-642-6116. We are available weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mountain Time, and the staff will welcome your comments.

Sincerely,

Maxine M. Rizzo
Consumer Information Representative
Consumer Relations
consumers@coors.com

sCARE's got a new website. Same cr@p, different package.

http://www.c-a-r-e.org/

For instance this:
The one larger TV tower greatly increases radiation levels on Lookout Mountain and in nearby neighborhoods. How? It isn’t rocket science -- digital antennas require more power. Current TV stations’ antennas put out 732,000 watts of effective radiated power. The Lake Cedar Group ( Denver channels 4,7, 9 and 20) tower proposal states clearly that digital antennas require increasing the power by nine million watts! Jefferson County’s independent radiation expert confirmed in sworn testimony that the proposal would increase radiation levels for many more people who live or work in the Golden area, as well as people as far east as the Colorado plains. Two additional engineers have provided further supporting detail. You can’t have more powerful TV without more powerful towers; but other sites ARE available (read on).
There are 2 key numbers stated here: 732,000 and 9,000,000(increasing by). Ok, according to the venerable FCC website, the 732,000 figure is right on the money(to the watt :p ). That leaves us with the 9,000,000 figure. What the hell is it? According to the very same FCC website, the construction permits for the 4 stations(4, 7, 9 & 20) have a total of 4,000,000 watts listed. That is an increase of 3,268,000 watts. Again, what the hell is the figure of 9,000,000 that they are using? :confused: And, they state that the figure of 9,000,000 is an increase, not the total.

Oh, I know, this is that New Math that I was supposed to learn in high school.
....jc

I also have a comment about why we are with no HD TV for us in Larimer and Weld Counties.
The Lake Cedar Group gave a presentation last month here locally and did not invite any County Commissioners, no newspapers, or post any info in the local newspapers. With the lack of marketing ability they showed I can see why SCARE thinks they will win.

Reggie

A4Short I am right there with you it seems anyone north of Boulder is just off the map for the Denver stations though I did get a waiver for my satellite provider from & since they can't prevent my from requesting a digital test. Still bugs me the attitude and not even will to put in a repeater setup as a temp fix.

I also have a comment about why we are with no HD TV for us in Larimer and Weld Counties.
The Lake Cedar Group gave a presentation last month here locally and did not invite any County Commissioners, no newspapers, or post any info in the local newspapers. With the lack of marketing ability they showed I can see why SCARE thinks they will win.

Reggie
Well Reggie, did you go and what did they say?(Don't buy an HDTV, you won't need it?).
....jc

Well Reggie, did you go and what did they say?(Don't buy an HDTV, you won't need it?).
....jc

They just present facts:
1. That the tower only represents 5% (I think this is the number) of power generated by all the antennas there
2. That Golden can not afford to annex the total land that the Group owns - they will only annex the land the new tower will be built on.

Can't remember the rest - there are some others here who were there.

Reggie

For instance this:

There are 2 key numbers stated here: 732,000 and 9,000,000(increasing by). Ok, according to the venerable FCC website, the 732,000 figure is right on the money(to the watt :p ). That leaves us with the 9,000,000 figure. What the hell is it? According to the very same FCC website, the construction permits for the 4 stations(4, 7, 9 & 20) have a total of 4,000,000 watts listed. That is an increase of 3,268,000 watts. Again, what the hell is the figure of 9,000,000 that they are using? :confused: And, they state that the figure of 9,000,000 is an increase, not the total.

Oh, I know, this is that New Math that I was supposed to learn in high school.
....jc

The remaining 5,000,000 watts is for channel 20 moving to Lookout Mountain from Mt. Morrison, if I recall correctly.

Of course, power emitted does not necessarily equal power that people will be exposed to on the ground.

-Wabisabi

Of course, power emitted does not necessarily equal power that people will be exposed to on the ground. - WabisabiBut, of course, power emitted by one's imagination is ridiculously higher than actual power! - Ernie

The remaining 5,000,000 watts is for channel 20 moving to Lookout Mountain from Mt. Morrison, if I recall correctly.
I guess that I missed more than the New Math. I already counted 1,000 kW from KTVD's Construction Permit(included in the 4,000 kW). All 4 CP's were for 1,000 kW.

Ok, I think that I found some of it. KTVD's current analog output is 5,000 kW. But, their CP is only asking for 1,000 kw. Looks like a 4,000 kW sCAREY error. Oooops. But, 9,000,000 does look a lot better(SCARIER). :rolleyes:
....jc

The 4,000,000 ERP that TPW quotes is correct based upon what channels will be used before analog cutoff. Channels 4 and 20 will stay on UHF so they will be at 1,000,000 ERP both before and after analog cutoff. But channels 7 & 9 will revert back to their VHF frequencies after cutoff, so their power will probably be somewhere in the 50,000 ERP range.

I think the 9,000,000 ERP increase is a pre-analog cutoff computation, calculated by adding channel 20's 5,000,000 current analog ERP and adding 4,000,000 (1,000,000 each for channels 4, 7, 9, & 20) for the 4 stations full power digital broadcasts. So sCARE's statement is probably correct, they just fail to mention that 5,000,000 (channel 20 analog) of the 9,000,000 ERP increase goes away at analog cutoff along with all of the 732,000 for channels 4, 7, & 9 analog along with most of the 1,000,000 digital ERP each for channels 7 & 9.

For instance this:

There are 2 key numbers stated here: 732,000 and 9,000,000(increasing by). Ok, according to the venerable FCC website, the 732,000 figure is right on the money(to the watt :p ). That leaves us with the 9,000,000 figure. What the hell is it? According to the very same FCC website, the construction permits for the 4 stations(4, 7, 9 & 20) have a total of 4,000,000 watts listed. That is an increase of 3,268,000 watts. Again, what the hell is the figure of 9,000,000 that they are using? :confused: And, they state that the figure of 9,000,000 is an increase, not the total.

Oh, I know, this is that New Math that I was supposed to learn in high school.
....jc

Maybe they are quoting metric watts. Isn't that conversion factor 2.75? :rolleyes:

Maybe they are quoting metric watts. Isn't that conversion factor 2.75? :rolleyes:


Very Nice

I also have a comment about why we are with no HD TV for us in Larimer and Weld Counties.
The Lake Cedar Group gave a presentation last month here locally and did not invite any County Commissioners, no newspapers, or post any info in the local newspapers. With the lack of marketing ability they showed I can see why SCARE thinks they will win.

Reggie

Reggie, you are dead-on right about LCG. They have failed in their own mission. And last month when I pointed this out and that the approach to educating voters should be at the grass roots level rather than by running obscure TV commercials, I was shouted down on the forum when somebody insulted a candidate for county commission who wasn't really informed on the issue. It seems some people on this forum and at LCG think people should know this stuff by osmosis rather than education.

A grass roots campaign is the only way to win this issue. I like the boycott of Golden-based businesses as one part of it as long as the Chamber of Commerce and Coors are made aware of the boycott. What good is a boycott of Coors if they don't know you're not popping open their cold ones?

I think a political action committee is in order, raising and disbursing money to pro-tower candidates in this year's elections.

And I think the members of that PAC, those on this forum, should walk the neighborhoods of Golden and surrounding Lakewood handing out literature and talking to people, face-to-face. Put up a table at King Soopers, Safeway, Albertsons or wherever and talk to people about the issue. Educate them, making them feel emotionally the impact of losing the tower on their lives, not to mention the impact of police, fire and other safety agencies not being able to use the existing TV frequencies so they can better coordinate communications during a crisis.

But LCG seems content to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. And we all know that doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, is, by definition, insane. LCG's stations are content to sit at Lincoln and Speer in their multistory buildings and think everything's just ducky. And some on this forum would rather insult than educate. And call me crazy, too, but I don't think that's working very well, do you?

And that's why in Feb 2009, OTA TV as we know it in Denver will be no more. Guaranteed.

...Put up a table at King Soopers, Safeway, Albertsons or wherever and talk to people about the issue. Educate them, making them feel emotionally the impact of losing the tower on their lives, not to mention the impact of police, fire and other safety agencies not being able to use the existing TV frequencies so they can better coordinate communications during a crisis...

I think a large display board with two pictures would do it. One shows a view of the current 4-tower configuration with a caption "Cost to Golden Taxpayers: $1.75 Million." The other shows the proposed single-tower configuration with a caption "Cost to Golden Taxpayers: $0." Simple, graphic, and to the point.

Dave,
I like it! Put that baby on 6th ave headin' into Golden.

I do too! Send the idea to LCG for their meetings and TV spots.

And call me crazy, too, but I don't think that's working very well, do you?

And that's why in Feb 2009, OTA TV as we know it in Denver will be no more. Guaranteed.

Bob

We do agree on this

Reggie


I do too! Send the idea to LCG for their meetings and TV spots.

Dennis

I doubt LCG will follow any ideas we suggest - they have their own agenda

Reggie

Dennis

I doubt LCG will follow any ideas we suggest - they have their own agenda

Reggie

This is the sad truth. And it took me a while to figure this out, but it's pretty clear they aren't in a hurry to get anything done.

Dave,
Here's your billboard.

http://www.santellaproductions.com/dtv/Billboard.jpg

I am in Longmont. Turned on the TV for GMA this morning and noticed channel 7 was coming in 15% more than usual. It was the same for all RP channels, 15-20% increase. Not sure if it was just good conditions (although I have NEVER seen that high of signal. Channel 7 was coming in at 95% in Longmont!). Or maybe it was the new motherboard drivers I installed on my HTPC last night... Doubt it. Anyone else on the fringe notice this, or is it just me?

Though I haven't looked at my signal strengths in a while, so I don't remember the exact number, my signal strengths are pretty much in line with what I remember.

I am in Longmont. Turned on the TV for GMA this morning and noticed channel 7 was coming in 15% more than usual. It was the same for all RP channels, 15-20% increase. Not sure if it was just good conditions (although I have NEVER seen that high of signal. Channel 7 was coming in at 95% in Longmont!). Or maybe it was the new motherboard drivers I installed on my HTPC last night... Doubt it. Anyone else on the fringe notice this, or is it just me?

There was an increase last night, but it seems to be back down to normal now. The increase from my location didn't seem too out of the ordinary, though. I'm guessing that it's mainly atmospheric. Below is my graph for 1-1/2 days of the RP stations. Unfortunately, my monitoring program hung at midnight (when it was trying to download the program guides from all of the stations), so I can't see when the signal started going back down.

--BJ Catlin

"You mean I can still watch the news if I unplug the cable?" said Eloise Valinet, who lives near Township Line Road and 86th Street. "Oh, thank you.''

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060519/NEWS01/605190512

And this is what LCG has to deal with. People that just don't understand that there is such a thing as OTA T.V.

And this is what LCG has to deal with. People that just don't understand that there is such a thing as OTA T.V.
So true... I have a friend staying with us this weekend and she was in shock when she saw how great my TV looked and I'm getting all of that thru this little tiny antenna sitting in front of the TV.

Here's your billboard.

Totally awesome, Ernie. It looks better than I thought it would! All we need now is someone with a spare billboard to put it on.

There was an increase last night, but it seems to be back down to normal now. The increase from my location didn't seem too out of the ordinary, though. I'm guessing that it's mainly atmospheric. Below is my graph for 1-1/2 days of the RP stations. Unfortunately, my monitoring program hung at midnight (when it was trying to download the program guides from all of the stations), so I can't see when the signal started going back down.

--BJ Catlin

Keeping track of reception data... that has an appealing amount of nerdiness. Are you able to lock on 7 with such a low signal? Were you the guy that was going to try putting up the extension for your antenna? Did it work?

One thing I've been noticing is just how much of a differnce the tuner makes for fringe reception. With the tuner built-in to my TV, chan. 4 is about equally strong as PBS and just a hair weaker than 9. 7 was the weakest. When I run off my PC with a Fusion 5 tuner (LG's latest tuner), I get much better reception across the board, with the exception of channel 4 which is on par with UPN, which means it is occasionally spotty. 7 is now as strong as PBS. They basically switched places. Anyway, I guess the point is that switching tuners might go a long way to clearing up fringe reception.

Keeping track of reception data... that has an appealing amount of nerdiness. Are you able to lock on 7 with such a low signal? Were you the guy that was going to try putting up the extension for your antenna? Did it work?

One thing I've been noticing is just how much of a differnce the tuner makes for fringe reception. With the tuner built-in to my TV, chan. 4 is about equally strong as PBS and just a hair weaker than 9. 7 was the weakest. When I run off my PC with a Fusion 5 tuner (LG's latest tuner), I get much better reception across the board, with the exception of channel 4 which is on par with UPN, which means it is occasionally spotty. 7 is now as strong as PBS. They basically switched places. Anyway, I guess the point is that switching tuners might go a long way to clearing up fringe reception.

Yeah, that would be me! The whole tracking of reception data is part nerdiness, part being bored, and part trying to learn how to integrate different types of programs. As for my antenna, I did finally get it raised to 30 feet above the peak of my house, which made some difference in signal strength, but not as much as I had hoped.

I had trouble with channels 7 and 20 during the colder months, but since it started warming up, those signals seem to be getting much better. They were around 45 on average during the cold months (which caused problems locking the signals), and now they are hovering around 55. The tuner card that is doing the monitoring is an older tuner card, which has a lot of problems with multipath, but my TV has the LG 5th generation tuner, which does a fantastic job. But I have noticed that they both tend to track the signal strength about the same, it's just that the LG tuner doesn't freak out when it gets the same signal from both of my antennas. (I know, I shouldn't have two antennas combined when they are pointing close to the same direction).

But as I keep telling my neighbors...someday I will be able to take that giant mast off of my roof. I've been sure to keep them all informed of the whole JeffCo/Golden/LCG mess, and that these lawsuits from sCARE are the reason that I have this giant mast in the first place.

I am in Longmont. Turned on the TV for GMA this morning and noticed channel 7 was coming in 15% more than usual. It was the same for all RP channels, 15-20% increase. Not sure if it was just good conditions (although I have NEVER seen that high of signal. Channel 7 was coming in at 95% in Longmont!). Or maybe it was the new motherboard drivers I installed on my HTPC last night... Doubt it. Anyone else on the fringe notice this, or is it just me?

I hate you :)

Sorry - I'm just 20 minutes down the road and can't get any Republic Building statins. :mad:

Reggie

Dave,
Here's your billboard.



That is good ernie

Anyone else see the disconnect in the response?

I got a reply from Coors - I sent them a letter indicating how I was boycotting their beers because of the towers - and have gotten my friends to do so.
[ ...snip ... ]



Dear Reginald:

Thanks for your e-mail and comments regarding the proposed TV towers on Lookout Mountain.

We understand your frustration with the city of Golden. While we wish any dispute to be resolved in a timely and professional manner, this is a matter for the city and its citizens to resolve. As a corporation, we only take positions on issues that directly impact our business Hmmm, a boycott doesn't "directly impact their business."

I bet if say a crowd the size of the average Denver viewership of Monday Night Football was actively boycotting Coors because of Golden's shenanigans, they'd decide that was "impacting their business" pretty quickly.

Actually, I think that boycotting the business community in Boulder may be counter productive. They didn't cause the problem, and many may not support their city's position on the matter.

Something that has not been discussed, is a ballot initiative. I can't help there, but any resident of Boulder could initiate it. I'll leave the wording up to some people who are more creative than I, but something like:
Do you approve of the City of Golden using taxpayer monies in an effort obtain land for 'Open Space', when the city can obtain land, in the same area for free?
or
Do you approve of the City of Golden using taxpayer monies in an effort to block digital television transmission on Lookout Mountain? And, if so, do you realize that television broadcasts of your favorite television programs might end, and that you would need to pay to see them?

Food for thought.
....jc

Totally awesome, Ernie. It looks better than I thought it would! All we need now is someone with a spare billboard to put it on.

Doesn't Gannett (Channel 9 & 20) own a billboard company?

They ought to be happy to put a few of those up!!!!

I sent the billboard pic to Marv. He emailed me and told me he really liked it. He's going to propose it to the group! Way to go Dave!

Maybe the lemon-aide stand at Kings Soopers is our next idea!

I am not a member of care. I am not a member of LCG. and am no longer a member of AVS FORM.

and am no longer a member of AVS FORM.WooHoo!!!!

Boy. That was easy, I wonder how many sCARE people monitor this thread, Its time to "come out of the closet" I like to see things stirred up now and then.

Kudos Dave and Ernie, I like the Billboard, I think the hot areas downtown are running around $3000.00 per billboard. Anyone know any radio jocks?

I live in SW Denver and just got an HDTV...so now I am trying to find a good antenna for getting OTA HD broadcasts.
Most of the stations I am interested in are in the "yellow" category on antennaweb; the only other ones I would be interested in are ABC (green) and WB (red). I'm not really sure I care about WB, so I figure I might be able to just go with a multi-directional to avoid the problem of having to redirect it to watch different stations.
Also, according to antennaweb, I am 8-12 miles from all of the stations of interest.
It would be nice for the antenna to be inexpensive (<$100, preferably <$50).
Indoor would be preferable, and outdoor directional is pretty much out of the question since the stations seem to be at disparate locations.
Any suggestions?

The ones I have seen recommended are:
Zenith ZHDTV1 (recommended by CNET)
DB2 from antennasdirect (recommended by HDTVprimer)
the double bowtie from radioshack (recommended here...not sure if it was serious though)

neriumoleander,
Welcome to the thread, I can't give you any advice on an indoor antenna, I use the Radio Shack VU190 antenna, I am able to get all the RP and Lookout stations from Longmont. I have had pretty good luck with it on five other installs for friends and neighbors. I have installed them on roofs ans in attics and been lucky so far. I would suggest trying something easy and see what you can pull in, You never know what you will be able to get and RS is pretty good about returns. You will want to point it at the tallest building downtown if you decide to go with a roof top. WB has a good signal and you may be able to lock on it pointing at RP.

neriumoleander,

I'm in Bear Valley, about halfway down the hill. I'm running a big ol' CM 4228 (think 4 DB2's) on 15' of mast with a rotor. Not indoors, and certainly not stealth, but even with this getup, I'll get breakups on the big three from downtown. 19 really breaks up (wierd - but no HD anyway).

If I'm interested in anything on Fox or WB, I'll swing the antenna around toward Lookout - there's just too much spread between locations for this antenna. If I want to get KBDI, then I'll need to swing it hard towards Squaw (not that they've got much on).

The rotor was easy - not quite cheap, but you do what you've got to do - although I whipped this up when KMGH was really whispering - it still doesn't give me a completely reliable signal from RP. The power is just too low. It's certainly not unwatchable - just annoying to have the occasional garble in a broadcast.

Like TheBert said, though - you'll want to experiment. Location and terrain are different for each of us, and what works for one may not for another. And as has been said many times - this really ~is~ a game of inches, so keep trying until you get what works for you. It's too bad that this is so much work, but it is worth it in the end (I think :rolleyes: ).

That'd be my 2¢. Resume party.

The ones I have seen recommended are:
Zenith ZHDTV1 (recommended by CNET)
DB2 from antennasdirect (recommended by HDTVprimer)
the double bowtie from radioshack (recommended here...not sure if it was serious though)

I live near Southwest Plaza and do just fine with the Zenith, although it is a but gaudi on top of the TV. And its stand could be a bit more stable. I've had to duct tape it down to the top of the TV.

I was able to get it from Amazon for $19.99. For a total order of $25, the shipping is free.

Unrelated comments deleted. Keep on topic. Do not reply to off topic comments, use the Report Post button.

Unrelated comments deleted. Keep on topic. Do not reply to off topic comments, use the Report Post button.

Oh boy, that sure seems to have put a damper on this thread!

I am not a member of care. I am not a member of LCG. and am no longer a member of AVS FORM.

Then you're a troll, and we're glad to be rid of you.

Oh boy, that sure seems to have put a damper on this thread!

I'll say.

Whoops, better keep this on-topic!
So, uh, how 'bout that tower huh? Pretty crazy-- pretty crazy stuff right there...

Unrelated comments deleted. Keep on topic. Do not reply to off topic comments, use the Report Post button.
That's odd - this thread should be under 200 pages if that's the case :confused: :D

Ernie - like everyone else, I love that proto-billboard. I hope Marv gets LCG to plaster it all over the Golden area.

Just got a note from Steve Gray. He said those interviews they filmed were made into 5 interstitial spots which may start airing by the end of the week.

Could you get them to stream them, so we can all get a look?

I just got this email from LCG. WOOHOO!

Lake Cedar News Release
May 23, 2006

The Lake Cedar Group is pleased the Jefferson County District Court
has ruled Canyon Area Residents for the Environment (CARE) and the other
opponents of the consolidated Lookout Mountain tower have presented no
competent evidence homes could be threatened by the structural failure of
the tower. The structural failure of the tower was the sole remaining issue
before the Jefferson County Commissioners in the Lake Cedar zoning
application.
We are one step closer to maintaining free over the air television
to the Front Range communities from Fort Collins/Greeley to Castle Rock. As
the last major city in the nation to have begun the conversion from analog
to digital, we are hopeful that all residents of these communities will soon
enjoy the benefits of digital television.
We look forward to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
reviewing the evidence and voting as directed by the court. The
Lake Cedar Group is a consortium of CBS4, 7News, 9News and UPN20 which is
seeking to consolidate four broadcast towers into one, shorter tower.

Contact: Marv Rockford
720.873.2315
marv@rockfordgray.com

So Judge Jackson sent the tower proposal back to the BCC for a final, once and for all, binding vote today. I wonder when the BCC will find time to schedule this vote - 2010? 2012?

There was a pdf of the actual court order attached. I don't know a direct link, so here is the actual wording:

ORDER

This case returns once again to this Court. Lake Cedar insists that the Court must affirm
the Board’s 2003 rezoning decision, despite the most recent vote of the majority of the Board.

The plaintiffs and the Board insist that because of the most recent vote the Court must now
permanently enjoin the construction of the proposed tower. The Court does not agree with either position.

As indicated in previous orders, the Court’s role in this case is limited to a review of the
record of proceedings before the Board and a determination, based on that record, as to whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion in reaching whatever decision on the merits that it reached. C.R.C.P. 104(a)(4). The Court is required to uphold the decision of the Board unless there is no competent evidence in the record to support it. See, e.g., Ross v. Fire and Police Pension Ass’n, 713 P.2d 1304, 1309 (Colo. 1986). “’No competent evidence’ means that the governmental body’s decision is ‘so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority.’” Ibid.

The Court’s second remand order, issued May 4, 2005, stated in pertinent part:

If competent evidence is presented to the Board that the tower set back is
sufficient to prevent multiple tower failures from impacting occupied dwellings,
and the Board once again affirms the rezoning decision, then the Court will lift
the stay and deny a permanent injunction. If such evidence cannot be presented,
then Court will grant the injunction.

Competent evidence was presented that multiple tower failures would not impact
dwellings occupied by anyone other than Lake Cedar. The County’s planning and zoning
provided such evidence. Record at 5220R, ll. 28-32. Lake Cedar’s structural engineer
provided similar evidence. Record at 5830R, ll. 8-10 and 689-90R. A significant factor
was that Lake Cedar, by its evidence, had acquired or leased all dwellings within the
range of what theoretically could be impacted by a multiple tower failure. According to
Lake Cedar’s evidence, no one who is not associated with Lake Cedar will occupy any of
these dwellings until the new tower is erected and the existing towers are removed.

The Board and the plaintiffs assert in their response to Lake Cedar’s motion that
competent evidence was also presented that multiple tower failure could still impact
occupied dwellings. The Court disagrees. The contrary “evidence” consists largely of
statements of counsel and speculation that Lake Cedar might have cut some side deals
that would permit homeowners in the potential impact zone to remain in their homes, or
that homeowners might force themselves back into the impact zone upon the expiration
of leases. Neither a lawyer’s argument nor speculation constitutes competent evidence.
The Court has compared the actual deeds and leases with the parties’ comments about
them and finds that the documents are consistent with Lake Cedar’s characterization.

The plaintiffs’ brief asserts that it is possible that even if collapsing towers cannot
impact an occupied dwelling, it is possible that debris from such a disaster could roll or
slide downhill and reach an occupied dwelling. Setting aside the speculative nature of
this “evidence,” the Court is satisfied with the conclusion of the Board’s staff, Record
5921R, ll. 6-9, and the Board itself in its brief at 4-5, that a reasonable setback
requirement is 100% of the height of any of the potentially involved towers. The Court is
similarly unpersuaded that speculation that a collapsing tower could possibly cause an
Xcel transmission line or tower to fail, which in turn could possibly cause some impact to
occupied dwellings outside the 100% setback area, constitutes “competent evidence.”
Even were these scenarios involving debris or an Xcel transmission line considered to be
“competent evidence,” however, there is no indication in the record that they had
anything to do with the Board’s majority vote.

There is also a suggestion that an individual who owns land within the potential
impact zone might build and occupy a home within that zone while construction is in
process, and that the City of Golden might sell property within the impact zone for
residential development. Competent evidence cannot be manufactured by one who
would intentionally put himself in harms way.

If in the future Lake Cedar were to permit any individuals other than those
associated with Lake Cedar to occupy any existing building within the potential zone of
impact from a multiple tower failure, then this would be contrary to Lake Cedar’s
statements, contrary to Lake Cedar’s evidence, and grounds for an immediate injunction
and potentially other sanctions. However, there is no competent evidence in the record
supporting a finding that there are, or likely to be, occupied buildings that could be
impacted by a multiple tower failure scenario.

At the conclusion of the hearing Commissioner McCasky moved “that the Board
find that the tower set back is sufficient to prevent multiple tower failures from impacting
dwellings occupied by persons other than the tower owner.” Rec. 5817R at 23-25. The
motion failed on a two to one vote. Rec. 5955R at 4-9. The Court finds that the
majority’s vote is not supported by competent evidence in the record.

That does not, however, resolve the case. The remand order instructed that if
competent evidence were presented that multiple tower failure would not impact
occupied dwellings, “and the Board once again affirms the rezoning decision” (emphasis
added), the Court would lift the stay and deny a permanent injunction. The message was,
and is, that the Board must either affirm or reject the proposed rezoning. The Board is
entitled to make the decision, but it is also obligated to make the decision.

During the long period of time that this matter has been pending the composition
of the Board has entirely changed. That, however, is simply the result of the political
process. Had the record been complete at the time the prior Board voted on the proposed
rezoning, this matter may long ago have been concluded, and the tower might well have
been constructed. However, that did not happen. The three gentlemen who occupy those
seats today are charged with the authority and responsibility to make the decision.

There does not appear to be a need for additional evidence. The record is voluminous, and all interested parties on both sides of the debate have been given an ample opportunity to be heard. The responsibility of the Board now is to review the record and then to make a decision on the proposed rezoning. Whatever decision is made must be supported by an explanation of the basis of the decision, which need not be expressed in legalistic terms. See Sundance Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Board of County Commissioners, 534 P.2d 1212, 1216 (Colo. 1975). Only by that means can the interested parties know what the reasons for the decision were. Likewise, only by that means can whichever party is aggrieved by the decision, and ultimately the Court, make an informed decision as to whether the record contains competent evidence supporting the decision. So long as there is competent evidence, it makes no difference that there may be competent evidence to the contrary. The Court will affirm whatever decision is made, so long as it can be shown that there is competent evidence in the record that supports the decision.

It is surely frustrating to all interested parties that this matter continues to drag on.
However, this decision, which will impact the public one way or the other, must be made
correctly and in a manner that the public can understand, even if not everyone agrees with
it.

Lake Cedar’s request for oral argument is denied. The case is remanded to the
Board for a third time. Whether the Board takes further argument or evidence is for the
Board to determine. The Court directs the Board to proceed with all due speed to bring
this matter to a conclusion.

Dated in Golden, Colorado this 23rd day of May, 2006

BY THE COURT:
R. BROOKE JACKSON
District Court Judge

We are one step closer to maintaining free over the air television to the Front Range communities from Fort Collins/Greeley to Castle Rock.
Uh, Marv? There's a few other people out here! :eek:

Does this mean that everything is finally resolved(or should be)? And, if so, when the new tower goes online it will be at full power, not 25% like KDVR & KWGN?

Me thinks that this saga is not quite over. :(
....jc

Does this mean that everything is finally resolved(or should be)? And, if so, when the new tower goes online it will be at full power, not 25% like KDVR & KWGN?

Me thinks that this saga is not quite over. :(
....jc
As I read the ruling (and I'm not an attorney) I think the board was told it had to vote on the rezoning again, and whatever vote was taken had to be accompanied by an explanation supported by the record. That is a fine line to walk but I don't see it as necessarily sufficient to persuade the commisioners to deviating from their previously stated campaign positions. There are other posters on this forum with far more expertise in this area. But I'm sure whichever party is disappointed by that vote will be in court the next day anyway.

So Judge Jackson sent the tower proposal back to the BCC for a final, once and for all, binding vote today. I wonder when the BCC will find time to schedule this vote - 2010? 2012?

This is worst case scenario. Unbelievable. The vote will be 3-0 No in 2008 and wabisabi will gloat. Then we are stuck with unconsolidated towers and VHF channel assignments.

Don

Unfortunately, I don't think it's time to be chilling any champagne.
The current BOCC will deny the rezoning based on whatever issues they deem appropriate. Their decision will be based solely on politcal expediancy and not on careful deliberation of all the facts in the voluminous record.
I do not understand why Judge Jackson remanded the case for a third time. The Board had made it's intentions clear twice before the set back technicality resurfaced. Why does the Board have to reaffirm their decision now that the Judge has determined that there was no competent evidence to support the set back problem?
The Board will deny the rezoning, LCG will appeal on the competent evidence argument and in February of 2009 this whole thing will still be tied up in the courts.
Total crap.

This is worst case scenario. Unbelievable. The vote will be 3-0 No in 2008 and wabisabi will gloat. Then we are stuck with unconsolidated towers and VHF channel assignments.

Don
> "The Court directs the Board to proceed with all due speed to bring
>this matter to a conclusion."

"All due speed", like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. Gee I wish this means it's almost over, but does anyone doubt there will be an appeal. Seems like I posted this scenario (the ruling) about 5 or 6 pages back and still concluded this ruling from the judge would not end the dance. It will be interesting to see how the commissioners find an excuse to again vote no on this one, but I am sure they will. Oh well, at least it's one for "our side". LCG holds serve, (S)CARE's turn to serve.
(Ain't this fun folks, and to think you could be living in any other city in the country and missing all this action. Just think how much we have all learned about the judicial system and county commissioners while everyone else in the country is simply watching their HDTV. Yesseree a regular Civics course. What a great education.....don't this beat TV where everything is scripted.)
:(


(I wonder, maybe NTSC.pal.etc. was really Judge Jackson just 'messin with us',)

> "The Court directs the Board to proceed with all due speed to bring
>this matter to a conclusion."

"All due speed", like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. Gee I wish this means it's almost over, but does anyone doubt there will be an appeal. Seems like I posted this scenario (the ruling) about 5 or 6 pages back and still concluded this ruling from the judge would not end the dance. It will be interesting to see how the commissioners find an excuse to again vote no on this one, but I am sure they will. Oh well, at least it's one for "our side". LCG holds serve, (S)CARE's turn to serve.
(Ain't this fun folks, and to think you could be living in any other city in the country and missing all this action. Just think how much we have all learned about the judicial system and county commissioners while everyone else in the country is simply watching their HDTV. Yesseree a regular Civics course. What a great education.....don't this beat TV where everything is scripted.)
:(


(I wonder, maybe NTSC.pal.etc. was really Judge Jackson just 'messin with us',)

I just don't see how extending the semi-permanent "temporary" injunction is one for "our side". Scare wins with every extension of the injunction; now the BCC is commanded to make a political decision. They will, no doubt, do that. Scare is popping champagne corks tonight.

Don

Since it was the Judge's action to stop the already approved tower, This should NOT go back to the BCC where it has been approved, twice. It is an abuse of the courts system to force or even require another vote. Since all requirements of the original suit have been met, it should have been dismissed and thus revert back to the original approved tower. Is there still a restraining order against building the tower? If so, this should have been lifted as well. LGC should file an appeal directly over JJ's head since he failed to resolve an approved re-zoning.

# Matt

Since it was the Judge's action to stop the already approved tower, This should NOT go back to the BCC where it has been approved, twice. It is an abuse of the courts system to force or even require another vote. Since all requirements of the original suit have been met, it should have been dismissed and thus revert back to the original approved tower. Is there still a restraining order against building the tower? If so, this should have been lifted as well. LGC should file an appeal directly over JJ's head since he failed to resolve an approved re-zoning.

# Matt

Well said.

Don

Since it was the Judge's action to stop the already approved tower, This should NOT go back to the BCC where it has been approved, twice. It is an abuse of the courts system to force or even require another vote. Since all requirements of the original suit have been met, it should have been dismissed and thus revert back to the original approved tower. Is there still a restraining order against building the tower? If so, this should have been lifted as well. LGC should file an appeal directly over JJ's head since he failed to resolve an approved re-zoning.

# Matt

I don't think that Judge Jackson has the legal power to refuse to let the commissioners actually vote on the plan, since the original ruling was that there was not enough evidence presented on the narrow subject. There would have to be a vote at some point. The judge does not have the power to take away the authority of the commissioners, only to make them follow the laws in their decisions. I think this ruling is the best that anyone on the LCG side could have expected. If he refused to let them vote again, my guess is, it would be overturned in a matter of minutes by a higher court. Just my own view, obviously I am not a lawyer.

Rocky Mountain News reports on the case: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4722510,00.html

If I read this correctly, (and like John, I am not a lawyer) then the BCC can hold a hearing and simply make a decision with no testimony, or they can go to the other extreme, and hold a full (3 or 4 day long) hearing.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that this board will do what is easiest.

-Wabisabi

Whether or not they have any testimony (and my interpretation of the order was that the judge doesn't really want them to have any more testimony) There does not appear to be a need for additional evidence. The record is voluminous, and all interested parties on both sides of the debate have been given an ample opportunity to be heard. The responsibility of the Board now is to review the record and then to make a decision on the proposed rezoning. is not a big issue, as long as they make clear the basis for their decision. Whatever decision is made must be supported by an explanation of the basis of the decision, which need not be expressed in legalistic terms. In this case, the easiest solution for the board (no testimony) probably provides the quickest path to the "next step". But the next step is certainly NOT the start of construction. LCG has a lot of time for their next step, which will probably be getting the digital equipment staged in the current tower support buildings, so they can just switch from analog to digital on 2/17/09. Actual construction would probably only take about 18 months, but obtaining permission to start construction doesn't appear to be any closer than it was 3 years ago when I started watching all this.

Deb Carney, attorney for the CARE homeowners group, said the latest ruling very clearly permits the current board of commissioners to weigh all the factors in deciding whether the site should be rezoned to permit the proposed tower.

I sure don't see that line of reasoning in this ruling. Anyone else? I guess that would be (S)CARE's next attack angle, the judge let them look at the entire case so now they can vote it down based upon RF power levels they incorrectly calculate or some other smoke screen they dream up. The original instruction was to consider only the falling tower, and by throwing it back to them to examine "ONLY" that issue, and then throwing it back again because they didn't demonstrate they did only look at that issue means to Deb they can look at all of the other issues. ???????? Must be some 'lawyer thing' the normal "rational" person doesn't see. Boy this is getting old.
:mad:

No, it already is old. ;)
We were all assuming that the original order was for the board to only review the tower fall issue, but apparently the judge also wanted them to either reaffirm or deny their approval.The remand order instructed that if competent evidence were presented that multiple tower failure would not impact occupied dwellings, “and the Board once again affirms the rezoning decision” (emphasis added), the Court would lift the stay and deny a permanent injunction. The message was, and is, that the Board must either affirm or reject the proposed rezoning. The Board is entitled to make the decision, but it is also obligated to make the decision.
The ruling not only permits, but directs the board to make that decision. They can look at ALL issues and "evidence", but the judge is telling them that they need to make a decision based on the facts. "Neither a lawyer’s argument nor speculation constitutes competent evidence".I don't think Deb is wrong in her assessment, but I think it would be very difficult for the board to rationalize a decision based on non-expert testimony. The incorrectly calculated power levels are interesting - if these were not in the original evidence, then the board could probably not consider it unless they opened up the hearing to additional presentations from both sides. I wonder what the judge will do if they make the same politically motivated decision again, which I think is very likely.

Judge Jackson seems a lot like economists - if you laid all the judges like him end to end they wouldn't reach a conclusion. It's truly amazing how much this one guy has contributed to the current mess.

I predict that LCG will go through the motions, BCC will vote again, the losing party will sue... and in 33 months the existing transmitters will switch from analog to digital. Jeffco is going to be in a very weak position both legally and politically trying to shut down TV for the Front Range based on a 'different service' argument that they haven't applied to other RF applications.

The downside, of course, is another three years wait for foks north of Longmont and sub-optimal frequency assignments forever. Plus unnecessary clutter on Lookout Mountain, but they deserve it.

This sounded pretty good...
There does not appear to be a need for additional evidence. The record is voluminous, and all interested parties on both sides of the debate have been given an ample opportunity to be heard. The responsibility of the Board now is to review the record and then to make a decision on the proposed rezoning.
Then to CHA he writes this:
Whether the Board takes further argument or evidence is for the Board to determine.
Pass GO, collect $200, and start this whole mess over again...
....jc


Long Live The Existing Towers!

So the JeffCo BCC will vote their politics and base it on some sCARE presentation other than collapsing towers. Judge Jackson will review their vote and its basis. The LCG will argue to the Judge that the BCC failed to comply w/ his order since the basis of the vote will not be fact based.

Not sure what happens at that point; although, the Judge Jackson does seem to be influenced by fact and not emotion. Therefore, there is a good chance he will not accept the BCC's vote basis and kick the issue back yet again.

This obviously could go on for almost 3 more years, at which point the digital conversion will occur on the existing towers and everybody will lose.

Long Live The Existing Towers!

No, I think we'll end up winning in the end.

I mean, the good folks of Golden will get to stare at all of those ugly-ass towers for as long as they live there, and we finally get our full power HDTV. Plus we get the satisfaction of knowing that they're over there staring at those towers while we kick back and enjoy glorious full power HD.

I don't know about you guys, but that seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.

Plus we get the satisfaction of knowing that they're over there staring at those towers while we kick back and enjoy glorious full power HD.

Don't forget the satisfaction of watching the HD news broadcasts of all those Golden residents griping about the millions of dollars the city wasted on pointless condemnation hearings and whining that they still have four towers instead of one.

Thanks to glorious HD, you will be able to see the wrinkles, tears, and frustration on their faces!

-Glen

On a serious note, it sounds like the judge is calling "no shenanigans" on the BCC. Come up with a decision, state your reaons for the decision, and don't use any non-facts or speculation in that process.

I don't know a thing about zoning law, but in federal land use law, you can't sue because the decision came out a way you didn't like, but you can sue because you feel the decision making process was flawed. Is zoning law similar or entirely different?

If it's similar, I guess what I'm getting at is that the judge wants a solid decision that won't be winnable on appeal because the decision making process was flawless even though at least one side didn't like the outcome.

I can also see a scenario where the BCC decision keeps getting appealed to higher and higher courts, and utlimately, a ruling is issued that severely restricts the ability of local governments to enact any zoning regulations at all. I'm not sure there's been a good case that says how far a local government can go to enforce zoning restrictions.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer. Anybody who is a lawyer know?

-Glen

A lot of people I have talked to think this case is (eventually) headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course if this is true, the issues argued there will more than likely not be about RF levels, alternative sites, tower setbacks or any other of the issues that are being argued about locally, but it will probably be about state/local land use control vs. Federal mandates. It could be an interesting ride.

-Wabisabi

A lot of people I have talked to think this case is (eventually) headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course if this is true, the issues argued there will more than likely not be about RF levels, alternative sites, tower setbacks or any other of the issues that are being argued about locally, but it will probably be about state/local land use control vs. Federal mandates. It could be an interesting ride.


I absolutely agree.

I just wish the case could play out in some other community. You know, NIMBY ;-)

Hi guys! I've been away for a while, how's the LCG tower construction coming along?