Squaw coverage and alternative sites sure sounds like a good topic for tonight.

BTW, I guess the Boulder Daily Camera thinks the Eldorado issue is near death, they did not bother to cover the meeting in this mornings issue unless I missed the article somewhere.

....I am going to drop them an email to that effect.

That is what I am talking about. If we don't let them know how we feel, there is no way that they can know. An email is OK, a letter is better, but in person is the most effective way to get your message across.

-Wabisabi

Right now it looks like I will be out of town on the 9th so I will do a letter.

I called JeffCo to get the case number.

For anyone else wishing to let JeffCo know how your Squaw mtn reception is here is where to send the letter:

----

Board of County Commissioners
ATTN: Michelle Lawrence, Chair
100 Jefferson County Parkway, Suite 5550
Golden, CO. 80419

Reference Case Number: 00015485RZP1 - Pinnacle Towers Inc. Rezoning

----

Note: Addressing the letter to Michelle Lawrence, Chair will ensure that all 3 Commissioners get a copy of the letter.


I agree with Wabisabi that we should let JeffCo know our feeling on Squaw but I will also give them my opinion on Eldorado as well.

Hey everyone,

I'm going to be left stranded downtown again tonight after the meeting. Is anyone going through Brighton on their way home and wouldn't mind dropping me off near Hwy 85 and Bromley Lane?

Thanks,

-David

Hey dr_mal,

I'll be there and will be heading back northeast after the meeting. I can give you a ride if you would like.

Don

Thanks Don!

Looking forward to seeing you all again tonight! I'll be giving my new hipix card a workout tonight recording KMGH from 7-10...

Thanks, KCNC, for hosting us tonight. I enjoyed the opportunity to see some of the people and equipment responsible for the HDTV CBS content I enjoy so much. It was also nice to finally see some details of the mythical LCG application.

And while I'm at it, thanks jm in Boulder for setting this up and donyoop for the ride home :)

I thought we could all use a spot of good news, so here's a Brighton HDTV update (drum roll not necessary):

Last night I finally got around to moving my antenna around in my garage (thanks for the tip at our last get together, Geof) and as of last night I can get KCNC-35 at about 40-50 signal strength. It's stable in that range tonight. Also, just for fun, I checked signal strength on KRMA-80 -- and I got a picture! The signal strength is borderline: 35-40, but 35 is enough for a picture and sound!

So now, in order of signal strength, I've got the local Fox (~75), CBS (~45), and PBS (~37) digital channel signals. Hmmm... that's funny -- I thought there were more than 3 local stations in town :)

Agreed Dr. Mal. It was nice to finally meet you all. Hopefully, we are headed in the right direction on the tower. I talked to my dad after the meeting and the CBS station in Green Bay is at full power and the ABC station is close. GB has a population of about 100,000. He also said that the local electronics stores DO advertise that there is HD available, come on in and let us tell you about it (listening, Listen Up? ;) ). And the CBS station does a good job of telling viewers that HD is available by turning to channel (5-1?).

These are two concerns that were brought up last night. If Green Bay can do it, I would have to think Denver can start doing it.

Thanks to KCNC for hosting!

Random thoughts from the meeting last night at KCNC...

24 people in attendance according to the sign in sheet. Not bad. Food was good, and the tour was very interesting. After the meeting JM, Geof and I were the last 3 to leave, so they took us on another tour of the facility through the newsroom, studios, and various sets. I never knew - if you look at the channel 4 news set, you'd never guess that the wall behind the news anchors is like 30' back from them. Pretty cool.

I think that the LCG has done its homework much better this time around, from what I know of the previous application. There are 3 local meetings scheduled the first week of April (trying to remember the dates from memory - don't have their handout with me) up in the various mountain areas - I remember El Rancho being one of them. Then, on April 16 at 7, there's a public meeting at the Jeffco county building. The most important signs that KRMA missed putting up 14 days before the meeting are already up for this one. Pete (the LCG director? He was the one that did most of the speaking, and is part of the independent organization leading the LCG effort) asked us to attend this meeting to show support for the LCG application. Non-Jeffco residents will be able to speak at this one, as it's a public meeting, not a meeting of the planning commission or the commissioners. Soon after that meeting, assuming that lots of issues don't come up that need to be addressed, the application will be submitted to Jeffco.

They had several graphic boards displayed showing before and after pictures of the Lookout site, and the other sites that were considered. The gist is the 4 current towers of KCNC, KRMA, KMGH and KUSA will be replaced with 1 tower. The new tower will be located a couple of hundred feet down the hill from the current towers, resulting in a tower height of about 200' less than KCNC's current tower (the tall one). (Was it 200' less or 300' less?) The antenna will have directional elements, and will at least reduce and in some cases eliminate RF radiation at the locations cited as problem areas in the previous application.

The chief engineers from KCNC (David Layne), KMGH and KUSA (sorry, don't remember names) were in attendance. David did more talking than the other 2 (and understandably so - he had more to talk about). The engineers did say that if the application doesn't get approved, then they will have to look at some kind of low power transmission options, but that until that happens, all of their energy is going towards getting the application approved. I asked the KMGH engineer when they would have the equipment in place to send the 5.1 sound from ABC, and he said "later this year".

I ended up winning the electronic gizmo thingie from JohnJr, and I only had 25 sigs on the page that I gave Geof. Thanks John, although I'm not sure what I will use it for... :) C'mon everyone, let's continue getting those petitions signed! They can only help our cause.

I'll post more later as I remember more details...Big thanks for JM for getting this meeting set up, and to David Layne and KCNC for hosting us!

Oh, and btw, my new hipix failed to record KMGH last night...probably user error...grrr...still learning how to use this thing. Not as simple as a vcr...

I'll chime in with my thoughts as well. I echo what those above me have said and also wish to thank KCNC again.

KCNC reads this forum daily and values our feedback regarding their digital signal (Personally, I suspect most of the stations read us). Although KCNC Enginnering doesn't post here they are paying attention to us and have done a terrific job working issues like lipsync and grey sidebars...thanks guys...

I think the LCG stations are committed to this application. I don't know if they are more committed than before but I did get the sense they feel this will be their last chance at Lookout (no one said that, just my feeling).

If this is denied they will rethink what to do with digital between now and analog shutoff but they stated, and will state to JeffCo and (S)CARE, that they will move their digital to Lookout when the analogs go away. In other words Lookout will be in use for a long long time. There could be some legal wrangling with this but this will be their stated intention. IMO, this is absolutely the right answer - come to an amenable solution now that works some current issues yet provides for the future or keep what you have now for a very long time.

The new proposal eliminates 4 towers and adds one tower with much less "face area". This is a prime requirement of the JeffCo Telecommunication Land Use Plan. They will also remove many buildings. They will also do this without any conditions as to when (like in their previous application).

They will help JeffCo fund RF monitoring and will enter into a legal agreement to resolve problem areas within "X-amount" of time.

The proposed tower is shorter and lower down the hill. This means that it can fall over and not hit anyone's home. The guy wires will not leave their property and ice-fall will not be an issue. Current towers (in some cases) are within 75' of the lot line so this will be a major safety improvement.

RF levels will be lower in all cases due to the new tower location and due to directional antennas.

If JeffCo rejects this application the existing Lookout situation will not change. They feel like this new proposal resolves a lot of existing concerns and has very few drawbacks but the app must be approved to realize that.

The new tower will house all analog and digital transmitters for 4, 6, 7, 9, 20 (channel 20 will move off of Morrison where they currently are).

Personally I think the timeline discussed in the meeting is optimistic. They hope to be approved by October and (pending weather) ready to begin broadcasting from the new location within 6 months of approval (I think that is what I heard). This could stretch out so they will agree to tear down the other towers (and remove some buildings) within a year of approval. Best case scenario means we'll be watching DTV from Lookout next Summer. The wildcard in all of this is whether or not there would be litigation following an approval (if it is approved).

We did not discuss what will happen if this is rejected (ie, will they litigate, where will they go, etc) because they are focusing their effort on this application.

The stations reiterated that Squaw has significant issues with coverage because of significant gaps in coverage along the Foothills (it's great out in the Eastern Plains though). They also have significant issues with Eldorado because of the NIST facility, access, and fire concerns (as JohnJr, Jm, and I can attest, it is a 4WD road to get to the top of Eldorado).

They will have 4 meetings between now and April 16th.
April 2 -> 5-8 PM -> JeffCo Airport
April 3 -> 6-9 PM -> Boettcher Mansion
April 4 -> 6-9 PM -> Historic El Rancho
April 16 -> 7-9 PM -> JeffCo Courthouse

If anyone can attend these meetings it will be to our advantage (and obviously to the LCG's advantage). In particular they'd like some "friendlies" (my words not theirs) at the JeffCo Courthouse meeting on the 16th. Depending on issues raised during these meetings the application will be submitted to JeffCo anywhere from April 17th to June 16th (I think they mentioned it must be submitted within 60 days).

I received an email from James Morgese and he thinks we should support both applications. I understand his point. But, I am not sure I will do that. I am not sure why I should support Morrison. I am not sure how KRMA or the LCG will answer the question about what will happen if both are approved. I am still not sure the sign thing wasn't "too convenient". I don't like the fact that KRMA has been silent about the sign thing. I don't like the fact they were not present last night. I don't know if I (we) are pawns in some behind the scenes chess game. I will not cooperate with any of these stations if all they are interested in doing is to use me. I will gladly cooperate with these guys and do what I can do but my support will come at a price - the price being to communicate with me (us). If this is going to be a one-way street I am not going to play the game. If they communicate with us and are willing to work together I will work with them.

That said, any letters I do write will be generic to Lookout, and possibly Morrison. I will write JeffCo shortly on Squaw because Squaw will leave me in the digital dark. If anyone has issues receiving Ch 12 I urge you to write JeffCo as well - before it is too late. I provided the address and case number in a previous post.

Great recap Mark and Geoff.

I'd like to add the main points that I heard last night:

1. LCG has done their homework in assessing other potential existing sites for locating towers for DTV broadcast. Lookout Mtn. is the best site for a variety of reasons. Their siting analysis included in their application should not be rejected because Jeffco does not consider it complete. The LCG has been communicating with Jeffco and other interested parties to address their concerns so that a fully informed decision can be reached.

2. If LCG is not given approval to locate a DTV tower on Lookout Mtn. and is forced to go somewhere else, then the existing RF levels at Lookout Mtn. will not go down in the short future. The analog towers will remain at Lookout Mtn and RF emissions will remain at their existing levels. At some point in the distant future, the DTV equipment may be relocated to Lookout Mtn. once analog broadcast is no longer required. At that point in time, the RF emissions will decrease. The main point here is that if CARE folks are truly concerned about RF exposure, then the new LCG plan will reduce the RF emission levels, the number of towers and buildings and the overall visual impact sooner rather than later.

3. The new tower design that LCG is proposing improves a number of existing conditions. The only disadvantage to this design is that the broadcast area is slightly reduced, mostly to the west affecting portions of Evergreen and Idaho Springs. In other words, the LCG had to compromise some of its coverage area in order to address concerns related to the tower location and design on Lookout Mtn.

4. The LCG recognizes it needs to improve its credibility and proposes to enter a legal binding agreement to support funding for independent monitoring of its proposed tower with applicable permit requirements. If the LCG is found to be out of compliance with its operating permit requirements and does not take immediate corrective action, then enforcement actions can be taken, including penalties and fines, against LCG.

5. The new LCG plan is intended to meet the long-term future needs for the Denver metro area, while addressing the existing and future concerns of Jeffco and its citizens. The new tower needed to support DTV broadcast is not just about providing a crisper TV picture. DTV technology allows multiple broadcasts to be made that allows a variety of uses to be served, including emergency broadcasting, weather scanning, and normal broadcasting.

I also wish to thank the LCG group for the meeting/discussion, and John, Geof and others in this forum for arranging the meeting. Kudos to KCNC for hosting the meeting and providing the tour.

I just spent a half hour on the phone with Ken Smith--he said he had also talked with John Martinko--who wanted to know about last night's meeting, what was discussed about LCG and the Mt. Morrison proposal.

I was candid with him about some of our concerns, i.e., KRMA's agenda with what amounts to a a competing application. He indicated that while KRMA was taking an either/or approach, they felt that the Mt. Morrison application had the best chance of approval.

LCG, of course, contends just the opposite. And we are caught in the middle, not knowing which to support. Stay with me on this.

I told him of my concern that the Morrison site wouldn't have slots for 2, 4, 7, 9, or 20. He said that the tower would have room for three additional full power digital transmitters which might be available for 2, 4, 7, 9, or 20. That was interesting, but reading Smith's own overview of their Mt. Morrison application shows those slots are already spoken for by PAX, Catholic TV, and Telemundo.

Ken also is firm in the belief that JeffCo may approve one but not both of the competing applications. But he would not comment directly on the possibility that once the Morrision site was approved, it would become more likely that a second tower might be approved on that site to accomodate other dtv broadcasters.

He also wants to host another meeting, sometime soon, with both the Morrison and Lookout proponents on hand. At the end of our conversation I was surprised to learn that he did not know how to access this forum. I suggested he become a member so that he can read our concerns, etc. first hand and communicate with us as needed. I promised that if such a meeting were to be scheduled, I would show up.

OK, now to my point (I know I have one here somewhere). Everyone and every group in this debate has an agenda. We, as individuals and as a group, need to decide what our agenda is. We should not necessarily buy into any other group's agenda, and we should not allow our individual or collective selves to be used to further other agendas.

To start this discussion, here is my agenda:

1. I want as much ota HDTV transmitted to my decoder as possible.

2. I do not want anyone's health to be compromised in the process, although I have yet to see convincing evidence that such transmissions--as proposed--are injurious to little children and furry kittens.

3. I do not particularly care which location is chosen for the antenna, but I don't want any legitimate broadcaster to be left out.

4. I do not care whether 1, 3, or 5, antenna are removed from Lookout. From my picture window I can see the towers in the daytime and the blinking lights from Morrison and Lookout at night. They have been there every night and day since I moved into this house in 1988. They are not a serious distraction, blight, etc. They are just there.

5. The "towers" I want removed are on my roof, attached to my chimney, one pointed to Lookout (NTSC) and one to downtown (18, 35). As far as I am concerned, removal of these "towers" will have a bigger aesthetic impact on my life than anything that is added/taken away from Morrison or Lookout. Full power HDTV will allow me to do that. And allow those who live in Fort Collins, etc. to access the signals, too.

My agenda is selfish, I know, but that is (at long last) my point: we all have to start working for our own best interests (see Geof's post above, next-to-last paragraph) and not be pawns in someone else's game.

I mean, really, do you truly care whether the Mt. Morrison antenna is horizontal or vertical? I don't think so.

What we care about is getting HDTV, safely and economically. Period. And that's what we should be working toward instead of having to choose between competing applications and dueling corporate egos.

OK, rant over. Any takers? Objectors?

Mike

Mike, I think you and I are pretty much in agreement. I am definitely struggling with the "dueling" applications. I am not sure what to do next. Right now I'm thinking I will keep any pleas to JeffCo generic in nature and similar to the petition position of keeping stuff in the Lookout/Morrison area. Then again, I'm not sure at this point I will even write a letter supporting either application.

I do not know if supporting the KRMA proposal is in "our" best interest at this time...further reflection and discussion is needed. The good news is I think the station folks are wondering the same thing.

I do know I am totally against Squaw (which is in Clear Creek County) and Eldorado.

Great summaries guys and nice meeting you guys and gal last night!

What I have pretty much personally decided is that the only application I truly favor (ie, see as a solution) is the Lookout Mountain 2 (LCG) proposal. Their argument is strong, logical, and it's just the right answer.

You long time threaders will know that I am/was very much in favor of putting the antennas wherever they would go fastest. I don't care if it's El Dorado, Morrison, Squaw (I'd get it ;), or Lookout.

But, the longer I have been in this thread the more I have become convinced, by thread members and the actions of the various interested parties, that the only/right place for the new Wonder Tower (better than Super Tower? ;) is Lookout.

-John

Originally posted by MRinDenver
OK, maybe I'm being too sensitive about this, so I would like opinions from this group.

When we all met at Channel 6 in February, they were hot to get as many Jefferson County residents as possible to testify at the hearing, then scheduled for 3-13.

I volunteered; a few days later I took a call from Ken Smith who requested that I appear at a certain time on a certain day. I agreed, without reservation. The he asked me to expedite a letter to the commission. Again, I agreed and got it in the mail that same day.

Since then, no one has been in contact with me. Hell, I wouldn't even know the hearing had been postponed without this thread. Maybe they're just too busy. Maybe they no longer need my testimony. No one called from Smith's office or from Channel 6. They just assumed I'd find out somehow, I guess.

I am willing to go the extra mile to help get a tower. While I do not expect a medal for my efforts, neither do I expect to be ignored or taken for granted.

What do you guys think? Maybe they just didn't like my letter. Maybe I'll be busy come June.

Mike

Mike et.al.
I got a call this morning from Ken Smith of Bear Creek Development, which is apparently the firm handling the Mt. Morrison application for KRMA PBS. He apologized for anyone who was not contacted about the delay in the hearing dates and suggested that Mike, or anyone else who had agreed to speak and was not contacted to give him a call and he will see that you are notified of the proper dates in a timely fashion. Anyone wanting to talk to him, send me a PM and I will send you his phone number (I do not think of getting his permission to post it in the forum for the public). Please send messages today if you want to get him quickly, as I will be out of town for part of the rest of the week and will not be able to reply.

Ken and I discussed the Morrison application, and he expressed surprise at the comments from Pete last night about the lack of funding available for the Morrison application. He said that although it is true they did not receive a grant that they had hoped to get, that does not and would not limit their ability to fund the construction of the site. Ken said KRMA is still fully behind their application on Mt. Morrison, as well as the application on Lookout. He expressed the opinion that although KRMA is behind the Lookout application, they are deeply concerned that it can be approved & constructed in a timely fashion and feel obligated to pursue the Mt. Morrison option. I explained to him how I can understand this position, but that it does make it difficult for the AVS members (and I suspect Jeffco as well) to understand which application to approve. I at least appreciate the fact that KRMA is anxious to get on the air from somewhere, which is more that I can say for some of the other stations in the area. KRMA is under different constraints than the commercial stations in that they are totally dependent upon public support, and as such, I believe they feel even more pressure than KUSA for (for example) who can depend upon advertisers to continue supporting them in either format. In addition, I would assume that backlash from (S)CARE and others in the Lookout area who are contributors to KRMA could be harmful to KRMA, and I suspect they are far more eager than the other stations to present alternatives to Jeffco in case the Lookout application gets bogged down. I don't know if this satisfies Geof or others as to the possible motivation behind the dual application, but it is what I can assess of the situation from my discussions with many of the parties. I am, like the rest of you, having a hard time on getting a handle on the situation. I saw that James Morgese has written to Geof and asked that the AVS continue to support both application, and I guess my final thought is that I am certainly glad that I am NOT in his position trying to straddle this fence.

Ken has offered to meet with the forum in another meeting (time and place TBD) if it would be helpful to discuss the issue of the dual applications (it's indeed to bad this could not have occurred at last night's meeting). I told him I would post the idea to see how the group would feel about this, since we have already been asked to support the meeting on April 16 as well. How do people feel about this one? Would a meeting with Ken (and I assume KRMA) along with Pete or someone representing the LCG be helpful at this time? Can the group support both applications with equal vigor without feeling conflicted? Please post your thoughts here in the forum.

I will not spend a lot of time repeating what has been written about last nights meeting other than to say thanks again to KCNC and Pete for arranging the meeting. It was very interesting to say the least, and I appreciated the fact that KUSA and KMGH also had representatives on hand to take 'some of the heat' from those of us who are 'occasionally' prone to climb on the soapbox and blow off some steam. Of course that is not my style, but all those other folks....:D The best part, was that they were still willing to talk to us afterwords, despite the various tongue lashing's.

I would comment that I was very encouraged by the LCG statement that if the applications are not approved, the DTV transmission will eventually still be placed on Lookout when the analog signals are removed. As I have stated many times here in the forum, if Jeffco still refuses to budge on the application, I think this would be the 'best' albeit probably a very unpopular solution. I just hope it doesn't have to get that far.

At the very least, it appears there will be LOTS of activity in this area over the next few months and plenty of opportunities for the group to get together again. Unfortunately for the HDTV community of 'wannabe viewers' in Denver, activity does not always equal progress and achievement.

Originally posted by MRinDenver
He indicated that while KRMA was taking an either/or approach, they felt that the Mt. Morrison application had the best chance of approval.



This is exactly the message that I took away from the KRMA meeting. KRMA wants to get on the air. And, although they would prefer the Lookout site, I think that from previous experience with Jefferson County they are concerned about a long and difficult process there. They are proceeding with "plan B" in parallel. We have often been critical when no backup plan existed. KRMA has one (actually two, since the Morisson proposal has two options).

I have no problem with this, except that I'm concerned that if it is confusing to us, it may be confusing to Jefferson County (and its residents) also. There will need to be some good communication.

Regarding the LCG application: Obviously, if the area residents true concerns are visual impact and RF emissions, they should back the new proposal with enthusiasm. Unfortunately, I expect they will continue to use the argument that all of the towers are incompatible with "residential" zoning and should be moved to someone else's back yard. I think that argument will have a MUCH tougher time now that there has been so much consideration of alternate sites.

So, I'm somewhat optimistic, for the first time in a long time.

Mark

Mike
Just posted my reply and saw you have already talked to Ken. I am glad he was able to get a hold of you. I thought you did an excellent summary of many of our positions. I agree with you on one point, the primary towers I want to remove are the ones all over my back yard and attic pointing to Lookout, the Republic Building, and various satellites, all just so I can watch network HD available in most areas already. I just wished there was some way we could convey our anger and frustration, not only to Pete and Ken, but also to the Jeffco commissioners who are sitting on their hands during all of this hoping the problem will drag on until after they have finished their terms and the next group is elected. Frankly I am 'mad as hell' at all of this, and I am angry about the amount of money I have had to spend to get reception of the same thing people in other communities can receive with a $200 STB.

I suppose we know from the last few months, that the local stations are listening to us (even if they are not all reacting), but the one area of silence I find most aggravating is from Jeffco. It certainly makes me glad I do not live in Jeffco. I know we in "the people's Republic of Boulder" are often ridiculed around the state for the various actions that we take in the county, but at least in Boulder the people DO MAKE THE EFFORT. It appears to me that the commissioners in Jeffco are more than happy to sit back and not work toward a solution of any kind. Yes, we in Boulder make some dumb decisions on occasion (many I might add), BUT AT LEAST WE TAKE ACTION AND MAKE DECISIONS. Memo to Jeffco, and yes, I know you are probably reading this too, get off your b*tts! If you want a solution to this messy problem, actively work with the stations and find one. No, you probably won't find a decision that will satisfy everyone (especially (S)CARE), but don't force this community to be the most backward community in the country just so you can be re-elected. No, moving the towers to some other location will not work, people will move in around those towers too, and in a couple of years a new (S)CARE group will come along and try to increase their property values by driving the towers away. No, the citizens of Denver and the FCC are NOT going to let you shut off OTA television in the Denver area just so you don't have to make a decision. The stations appear willing to work with you to use their property on Lookout as it has been used for 50 years, in a safe and responsible fashion. Show us some character, step up to the table, work with the stations, find a solution for something that can be built in under 2-4 years, and get on with your jobs. If you can't even do that you don't deserve to be re-elected anyway!

Turn off rant mode.....
"That's just my opinion, I could be wrong".

At some point the question will be posed to the LCG what they would do with the DT18 and TV6 portion of their complex if KRMA goes to Eldorado. Likewise at some point KRMA will be asked what they will do if both are approved. Why approve Morrison if Lookout is approved? Will JeffCo wish to delay the Morrison app until the Lookout application is decided? Will they even want to consider both approaches?

I cannot see how I could go to my county with 2 different plans telling them I will take whichever they approve first and have them give serious consideration to either. This process isn't about throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks.

Of Course Ken feels like the KRMA Morrison proposal has a much better chance of being approved than the LCG app. Of course Pete will say the same thing about the LCG app. The bottom line is these folks ought to sit down and hash things out. I cannot see where multiple proposals is better than one unified approach. Sorry I'm not buying it (now at least). Unless I can be convinced otherwise I will withdraw my support for KRMA. In fact at this point I am inclined to write JeffCo opposing that application. Something is bothering me about this but I just can't bring the proper thoughts to consciousness....I don't know....I just don't know....

I just called Soundtrack again on the petition and was told they will not support it saying they need to remain politically neutral.

Send folks over to ListenUp or Jeff Walter - they are supporting this effort....

NOTE: updated per JohnJr's comment....

or to Jeffwalter.

-John

Well said, Geof.

I, too, spoke with Ken Smith, recapping last night's discussion and the perceived unease the group has with which proposal to support. Mt. Morrison, Lookout Mtn, both of them, or D) none of the above.

It would seem to me that a follow up discussion with KRMA would go a long way in helping me decide which proposal(s) to support. I requested another meeting with James, et al, and he said it could and would happen before the April 16 LCG Formal Community Meeting. I would also like to have Peter McNally there to resolve, once and for all, the relationship of KRMA with LCG and LCG's take on KRMA's dual support for both the Mt. Morrison and Lookout Mtn. proposals.

Should be an interesting meeting. Ken's setting it up. I think this is an opportunity not only for us to get some comfort level with the competing proposals but for KRMA and LCG to get on the same page and for all of us to have a cohesive direction toward the goal of getting DTV on the air in Denver.

Will anyone besides myself make the trek downtown one more time?

John in Jeffco

Count me in for another meeting :)

I think I would recommend that KRMA (Ken?) and the LCG (Pete) have a meeting first to get on to the same page. I am not sure what is served by have them debate in front of us who is doing what to whom for what purpose. I would rather have a meeting when they have resolved the issue, not to help them resolve it in public.

"That's just my opinion, I could be wrong!"

Originally posted by johnty

Will anyone besides myself make the trek downtown one more time?

John in Jeffco What the hell ... I will. I doubt we will come away with anything clearer than what was stated already. But, I suppose a little redundant activity is better than no activity at all.

I also intend to attend the April 16 LCG formal community meeting. Station tours and meetings with the broadcasters and snacks are fun and informative, but the community meetings and public hearings is where it counts; literally.

Well I agree with jm and hope they resolve this bewteen themselves before we meet with them but I think it is probably worthwhile. I will likely be able to attend a meeting but I will be out of town for several days around the 10th (and that may move out a day or two).

JohnJr, thanks for the reminder - refer them to JeffWalter or LU....

I tend to agree with John. We know what we know about the KRMA vs. LCG app. Either they will deem to tell us more (their meeting)... or there is nothing more to be gained by having a meeting on that topic.

I am decidedly confused there, and rash as I am... I discard confusing factors. Lookout or bust for me.

-John

I am decidedly confused there, and rash as I am... I discard confusing factors.And one has to wonder if JeffCo won't feel the same way....

I think you may have coined the slogan:
Lookout or Bust

Although I understand the confusion (KRMA should probably clarify things), I still do think it makes sense to support both proposals.

BOTH reduce the number of existing towers. If BOTH are built, we would still have fewer towers, RF emissions, etc. And there are other clients besides KRMA on the Morrison application. Whether both actually get built would come down to a financial decision for the clients. BOTH proposals are good for DTV and even for residents in the area.

I'm not sure that Ken and Pete necessarily will be on the same page--they are competitors & developers, each pushing for their own proposal. But they don't need to be on the same page.

Mark

Originally posted by Geof
I think you may have coined the slogan:
Lookout or Bust

Time to start cranking out the bumper stickers! ;)

Maybe it's time to start hammering on AT&T to get the ball rolling on HDTV. Then it wouldnt matter if these stations were powered digitally by nothing more than a gerbil wheel, they could just tap in and start sending out the HD signals to every cable home in the area right, or not? Not sure how cable does that exactly. Regardless, it has to happen via cable one way or another eventually before the masses will ever care about getting HD. Or so numbers of viewers (or lack thereof) from other big cities would seem to indicate at least.

Dan,

I think your argument is extremely valid re: the cable companies, and how I get my HD HBO... Echostar. It's a marketplace, and my guess is that OTA will lose in the long run. The networks should be kicking and scratching to get HiDef NOW.

But they aren't ... <wry grin>

With that said, we need to support OTA as best we can.

-John

"Lookout or Bust"

Sorry! Can't support that one, since given the (S)CARE influence on the Jeffco "spineless" commissioners, it might be an invitation for them to try to select 'bust' or ask for another study of the 'bust; option. I think you just shorten it too:

"Lookout"

with an artists' sketch of the proposed tower. All benefits and proceeds from the sale could go to offset the cost of sleeping pills for the folks on Lookout. That way the 'spineless ones' do not have to make a decision, it is made for them.

:D

Sorry for the humor, but at this point I am just too PO'd to share what I really think! I toned it down in my previous couple of posts.
:mad:

Sorry Folks! Really wanted to get to the meeting, but wrapping up the renovation of my new home, and waited all day for the Denver Building Inspector who ended up as a no-show:mad: :mad: :mad:

Didn't get out of the house until almost 6. Thanks for the thorough recap, will try to make the miss up by going to one of the formal meetings next month.

We may need to change our references to (S)CARE group from NIMBY to BANANA

Broadcast Engineering Magazine Article (http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=158&releaseid=9964&magazinearticleid=143227&siteid=15)

I'm not sure what 200' tower in Denver they are referring to.

Originally posted by mbuchana

...BOTH reduce the number of existing towers. If BOTH are built, we would still have fewer towers, RF emissions, etc. And there are other clients besides KRMA on the Morrison application. Whether both actually get built would come down to a financial decision for the clients. BOTH proposals are good for DTV and even for residents in the area.

I'm not sure that Ken and Pete necessarily will be on the same page--they are competitors & developers, each pushing for their own proposal. But they don't need to be on the same page.

Mark Yes and no. If Lookout is approved the Channel 6 tower comes down regardless so approving Morrison does not bring down yet another tower (although it would replace an existing tower with something new).

Now, if you were a JeffCo official (on the planning board or especially an elected Commissioner) would you want to spend a lot of time, effort, and County tax dollars, investigating, researching and holding hearings on a project that you know up front might never happen because there is also another project proposal in the same process that may obviate the need? Might you not be all that enthused to be wasting your time (and tax dollars)? Has your boss ever given you a job that you knew was a waste of time? How'd that make you feel? Is it in our best interests to thrust this attitude upon JeffCo? I don't know but I think if I were JeffCo I'd reject both and tell them to come back when they're not wasting my time. Then again maybe I am ignorant on this....

I utterly disagree that Pete and Ken don't have to be on the same page. They'd better not be saying things to shoot down the other side. Can you imagine if Ken asserted that Lookout is horrible? They better be coordinated and careful to not step on each others application. This very prospect has me concerned because it might create an opportunity that (S)CARE can take advantage of to work one app against another. I didn't particularly have cause for concern when the KRMA app was going to be out of the planning board by the time the LCG app was submitted - in this case it was clear that one app was following another, perhaps even paving the way for the other. Now that the timing may be similar I don't see this as advantageous at all. There could likely be several meetings in the same week where in one everyone talks about how this app makes sense and then on the next day a similar crowd gets together saying no, this app makes sense. All along (S)CARE is consistently saying neither app makes sense. Doesn't seem like this works to our favor to me....

Maybe I am really confused and this problem is all in my mind but I haven't heard anything yet to convince me that there aren't some very real pitfalls here.....

Thanks for the link Ron. This further reinforces my opinion that we should have one LOUD voice supporting one rational proposal. If the Lookout application is denied then KRMA should pursue Morrison.

For newbies and myself...

BANANA. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard.

-John

uh, and read the article before you post... unlike me <smile>

Geof, I have been wrong in most everyone of my previous thoughts;comments.

However :)

I don't think Jeffco will reject them both and ask them to come back when they are almagamated. I do believe there are underlieing negotitations and stuff. Why would jeffco deny El Dorado if they cared about sCAREs cares?

sCARE wants El Dorado... so they have now denied lookout (LCG) and scare (El Dorado) once. I think LCG2 is good to go.

-John
"Lookout!!!!"

Geof,

I agree with you. I very strongly oppose Squaw because I can't get 12 ota where I live. I strongly oppose El Dorado for a number of reasons, not the least being that if a problem happens up there when there's a bunch of snow it could take days to resolve. And at this point, I have to oppose Mt. Morrison as well because it really seems to me that we are dividing and conquering ourselves with 2 separate, and opposed applications. I can understand KRMA's stance on this, but I really think that their waffling between the 2 sites hurts everyone involved, except for S(CARE). I am throwing my full support behind the LCG app, and will be at the April 16th meeting.

John - I would absolutely be willing to meet again with the KRMA folks, and maybe they can convince me to change my current opinion, but at this point I am dropping my support for their application. Just my opinion, and one that I am going to act on.

Mark,
Let's hope that the LCG stations can come up with a rational and coherent story for pursuing both apps. They also better insure they are coordinated so as to not step on one another. They certainly weren't crisp on this last night so they do need to work on this aspect. I think they'll have a problem if thay can't even convince the forum members why this makes sense.

Just to be clear to everyone, I haven't closed my mind on this at all - but right now I do not see it.

Lookout!!! HDTV is here!

Lookout Mountain... HDTV's home.

Lookout, I see you :-)

-John

Geof, to my minds eye it is obvious that KRMA is half-way fighting LCG with there request.

The operate under different rules (KRMA) and they don't give a twiddle about LCG.

-John

One more thought and then I'll shutup for awhile.....

Maybe it doesn't matter if we support one or both apps (as along as we support at least the LCG app because that brings us 5 channels).

I think the LCG folks need to figure out if it is in their best interests if both apps are pursued. Ultimately I'd like to hear their rationale for whatever they decide....

JohnJr - how about lookout Lookout

Well I guess I must say that I'm not really surprised by what some of you are saying. I didnt really understand the virtues of putting one station on Morrison to begin with if the other stations didnt want to follow suit, unless it would have been a case perhaps where that site was under a different jurisdiction altogether and it was a gimme for at least the one station that wanted to go there. Seems to me it stood to just cloud the issue up even further. Course then again I'm not paying that close of attention either.

First off, I would like to thank KCNC for their tour and hospitality last night. It is appreciated.

Now on to the topic at hand...

I think the LCG stations are committed to this application. I don't know if they are more committed than before but I did get the sense they feel this will be their last chance at Lookout (no one said that, just my feeling).

I agree 100% with this. I do feel that they are doing something that could have been done earlier, like a year earlier. I like to speculate. Maybe the submittal of the Mt. Morrison application triggered action by the LCG to finally come up with this proposal. Of course I might be totally wrong and KRMA really can't roll the dice with the money they have, but it seems they are spending money based on the "odds" of the situation. This is what adds to the confusion level. How can they afford to have a backup plan when the commercial, revenue-producing stations (7 & 9 at the meeting last night) will not even consider a backup plan at this point. I do understand that having a backup plan could "weaken" their image of being 100% committed to this proposal.

I believe that the LCG2 proposal being presented to the public and to Jeffco is outstanding; it should be approved. It is my opinion that KRMA would gladly jump off of the Mt. Morrison bandwagon if LCG 2 is approved because of greater coverage.

Do I think that tower reduction and RF level reduction will be approved? I have one thing to say. No comment. Only time will tell; Jefferson County is unpredictable on this issue.

I also agree that this is the last chance to get normal power digital transmission in Denver before the cutoff date (probably 2008 - 2010). Dan is right, cable could and should beat that deadline now instead of waiting until then. I also feel that a meeting with KRMA/LCG will not really bear fruit unless some concrete information comes forth. The federal funding issue was a surprise at least to me and I noticed some surprised reactions around the room when Pete mentioned that.

My supports now lies #1 with LCG2. Lookout is and remains the best site for transmission.

Now Jeffco can have tower reduction, RF level reduction, and no new site development if they so choose. We shall see if the commissioners and (s)care really want that as well.

It would be nice if the Jefferson County planning committee actually fulfilled their charter and recommends the best overall solution which is LCG2 over all others.

We in the forum do need to come up with the best way to treat the Mt. Morrison app without degrading support for the LCG2 proposal. The LCG2 proposal will need our focus over the next 6 months.

How about Lookout Looking Better? Nah, too corny.

Don

There is certainly a considerable argument to be made for James (KRMA) and Peter (LCG) to meet and hammer out a strategy before we would get together. The problem I have with that is a) they should be on the same page anyway and b) how do we know what they really think about each other's plans unless they are both in the same room?

We are probably the only friends the broadcasters have that are on their side. Given the reality that two different proposals are on the table, how can they elicit our support if they view it as "us" against "them"? Given the disillusenment that is surfacing in this group, I don't see any recourse other than to get everyone together in the same space and agree on a strategy.

This doesn't have to be a confrontational meeting. I would like the LCG and the Mt. Morrison camps to think through their positions and arrive at some concensus that we feel comfortable supporting. If that isn't possible, so be it. But I can't help but feel that if everyone were to get together and discuss the issues in a positive manner, we could hammer out a gameplan that we could support in our common goal of getting high-power DTV on the air.

John in Jeffco

IMHO, the KRMA Mt Morrison application, at this point, can only hurt the LCG2 application. Part of the premise of the LCG2 app is that serious consideration for alternate permanent sites was done, and the result is that Lookout is the best site for coverage, accessibility and other issues. That statement is undermined when one of the LCG applicants has another application for Mt Morrison. I would go so far as to say that at the same time the LCG application is submitted, KRMA should withdraw their application, or at least request JeffCo to suspend it.

At any rate, I'm sure this will surface at the community meetings and it would be interesting to see how it is addressed in public. It might be a good idea to ensure someone from AVS is at each meeting to see how they unfold (or unravel!)

The main concern I'm reading here is the feeling that supporting the Mt. Morisson application will weaken the LCG2 proposal.

I do not think that is the case, though I am bothered by the confusion it is causing. As reiterated above, Mt. Morisson is a replacement tower that is a major improvement over the existing structure. It should be promoted that way. It is a backup approach for KRMA, who is the most desperate to get on the air. Possibly this is also due to an aging analog installation nearing the end of its useful life--they need to do something.

We all seem to agree that LCG2 is the best proposal for everyone. No problem with expressing that opinion to JeffCo. It also seems logical that it should be considered first by JeffCo. But it also strikes me as odd to ask KRMA to simply wait to see how that turns out. Past evidence indicates that it could be a very lengthy process, whereas support for Morisson seems to be lining up (in editorial opinions, etc.). If LCG2 goes well in the early stages, I do think KRMA will be with them and be very pleased with that option. I'd like them to clarify thier decision process on this.

Trying (straining?) to think as optimistically as possible, the fact that two proposals will be on the table roughly at the same time could actually help JeffCo come to a conclusion more quickly. If nothing else, if the proposals are denied, it shows a large number of approaches were attempted when the FCC finally decides to intervene.

Also, by saying that Peter & Ken didn't need to be on the same page, I didn't mean to imply that it is OK for them to sling mud at each other in front of JeffCo. But we should expect that their focus as developers will be on promoting their own project. Each CAN be approved on its own.

I do think that actively OPPOSING the Mt. Morisson proposal is a bad idea. It sends the wrong message about DTV demand in a big way. If LCG2 gets bogged down, we'll need Morisson.

Mark

Originally posted by JohnJr
For newbies and myself...

BANANA. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
NIMBY. Not In My Back Yard.

-John

uh, and read the article before you post... unlike me <smile>

Don't forget the hardcore NOPES
Not On Planet Earth Stupid.....

The Canyon Courier is a weekly newpaper publication that covers news and events in the areas of Evergreen, Genesee, Lookout Mtn. Yesterday's edition (3/27/02) of the Canyon Courier contained a letter to the editor from Carole Lomond recommending that broadcast towers be located on El Dorado, rather than Lookout or Morrison. Carole offers her criticism of the LCG latest proposal. She is a CARE advocate and frequent writer (publisher?) for City and Mountan Views, a quarterly news magazine for the Lookout Mtn and Genesee areas. Their web site is http://www.citymtnviews.com/. Links to articles related to the towers can be found here.

The Canyon Courier also had articles about the Jeffco review of the Pinnacle Point El Dorado proposal and a notice about the public meetings for the LCG2 proposal.

Not surprising, the articles related to tower proposals in the local newspapers and magazines are starting to increase. So far, most of the local press has focused on CARE and their views, which are obviously one-sided in their NIMBY/BANANA tactics.

Does the AVS forum want to consider submitting a letter to the editor to the Canyon Courier? Can we show unified support for the LCG2 proposal, along with a position on Bear Creek Development's Mt. Morrison proposal? I believe a unified letter to the editor would allow residents to hear another perspective and could help build local support for LCG2.

What are your thoughts?

It may be a bit premature to endorse the LCG2 proposal since it hasn't yet been submitted to JeffCo. I certainly think we should endorse this proposal once it becomes "official".

I am undecided but still not convinced Morrison is a good idea. At this time I will neither support nor oppose that application. Hopefully someone from KRMA will clarify why we need both apps and why one app won't be hurting the other.

As to the Pinnacle app what more could we expect from (S)CARE? They have been advocates of Eldorado for quite some time because it is not in their backyard. They need to recommend and endorse Eldorado otherwise the situation moves closer to home. I would hope a carefully worded letter to the Canyon Courier stating something to that effect might be published (along with any other opposing position letter that meets their criteria and is well thought out).

I think anyone could write such a letter but if you are asking if we (as a group) should send them a group letter that is an intriguing idea. If you wish to write a proposed letter and post it here for us to review we could "electronically" sign up and you could submit a letter with our "electronic" signatures possibly referencing this forum and thread....

Originally posted by mbuchana
We all seem to agree that LCG2 is the best proposal for everyone. No problem with expressing that opinion to JeffCo. It also seems logical that it should be considered first by JeffCo. But it also strikes me as odd to ask KRMA to simply wait to see how that turns out. Past evidence indicates that it could be a very lengthy process, whereas support for Morisson seems to be lining up (in editorial opinions, etc.). Mark

I agree that it is a very lengthy process. Mount Morrison submitted their formal application over 6 months ago. Eldorado has been in the works for over 18 months, I think. The LCG2 application will be scrutinized as closely as any other site, and I think it is highly unlikely that they will get before the Planning Commission before October. So, as long as the signs are posted on time for the June hearings, Mount Morrison might be over before the LCG2 gets to its first hearing.

I do not think it is best to pit one application up against another. Let each application succeed or fail on its own merits.

-Wabisabi

Right now, I bet both groups wish they had never heard of AVS forum.

FWIW, I will send this out in tomorrows mail... March 29, 2002

Board of County Commissioners
ATTN: Michelle Lawrence, Chair
100 Jefferson County Parkway, Suite 5550
Golden, CO. 80419

Reference: Case Number: 00015485RZP1 - Pinnacle Towers Inc. Rezoning

Dear Jefferson County Board of Commissioners,

I am following the various television tower proposals with a great deal of interest. Although I am not a Jefferson County resident I rely upon the television towers located in Jefferson County to receive local television. Obviously the towers located in your County have far reaching impact across the Denver Front Range area. As such I believe it is in everyone’s best interest to ensure that the new digital television towers continue to provide local television coverage to as many Front Range residents as possible. I, like many, would not want my television signals to suddenly be turned off with no hope of receiving the digital stations. As you have undoubtedly heard though testimony some transmission sites are better than others. Unfortunately most everyone seems to have their own vested interests that provide the basis for their opinions regarding the suitability of various transmission sites. I believe a bit of reason and intuitive logic can be applied to offer a sanity check on various claims of site suitability.

The Pinnacle Eldorado site is the present home of KBCO FM. One merely has to drive around town listening to KBCO to determine coverage area. You’ll find many isolated pockets where it is difficult, if not impossible, to receive this signal. Yet those same locations suffer no such reception problems when receiving FM signals broadcast from Lookout Mountain. Digital television signals are much higher in frequency than FM signals, which makes “line of sight” even more imperative. Because of this one can rightfully conclude digital television is more difficult to receive than FM, hence digital television broadcasts from Eldorado will be more difficult to receive than FM radio broadcasts from Eldorado. The end result is there will be more (and perhaps larger) isolated pockets in the Front Range area that will be unable to receive these signals over the air.

Squaw Mountain is an even worse location than Eldorado. Channel 12 currently broadcasts from Squaw Mountain and there are many areas along the Foothills (for example) where reception of Channel 12 is impossible. Take my home as an example. I live in the SW part of town just south of the Lockheed Martin plant in the Roxborough Park area of Douglas County. I have a medium sized antenna pointing towards Lookout (and hence Squaw) and while I enjoy almost perfect reception of the stations broadcasting from Lookout Mountain none of my television sets can receive snow, let alone a picture, on Channel 12. I depend on my antenna to receive our local stations – not cable – and not satellite. I do not want our local stations banished to Squaw Mountain where I am unable to receive anything. Should this happen perhaps you could make arrangements with your County treasurer to reimburse me for the monthly fees I would begin to incur when our stations broadcast solely from Squaw mountain. I am sure that other affected citizens would appreciate similar financial reimbursement should this scenario be implemented.

By now you’re probably thinking I’m nuts. No, I’m not, and I really don’t expect Jefferson County to reimburse me in the future for the inability to receive local television broadcasts that I now receive for free. More to the point, I hope you don’t put me (and many other Front Range residents) in a position where I will no longer be able to receive free over the air television. Anyone who claims Squaw Mountain is an acceptable site is not presenting you with an entirely accurate picture (pardon the pun). The same is true of Eldorado. I strongly believe the towers should be located where they can serve the most people (in the stations primary coverage area), not where they will “inconvenience” the least amount of people. To use our land and resources otherwise seems foolish to me. I hope it does to you too. Please reject the Eldorado application while also realizing that Squaw Mountain is an even worse alternative.


Sincerely,

Originally posted by MRinDenver
Right now, I bet both groups wish they had never heard of AVS forum. You might be right but they'll thank us someday :)

Seriously, if we are struggling with this so will others. They need to work on this aspect and have some crisp well reasoned answers...

I strongly believe the towers should be located where they can serve the most people, not where they will "inconvenience" the least amount of people.

Actually, nearly every propagation model shows that the total number of households who would receive a signal from Squaw is greater than any other of the sites. The difficulty with that analysis is that many areas that currently get a signal would not, and visa-versa. You may want to rephrase your letter to say something to the effect that you would like DTV reception patterns to match the existing analog reception patterns as much as possible. Maybe including something about choosing a place to live that had OTA reception.

I don't know, just a thought.

-Wabisabi

Actually, nearly every propagation model shows that the total number of households who would receive a signal from Squaw is greater than any other of the sites.Not from what we were told at the LCG meeting last Tuesday. Pete said that the number of viewers would decrease but the coverage area (in square miles) would increase. They'd be losing viewers along the Front Range and gaining a few in the Eastern Plains, but that is not in their primary coverage area.

Nonetheless I have slightly modified the sentence...I think this takes care of your concern...

Geof,
I believe you meant KBCO, not KCBO.

Thanks for catching that Malcolm....

The format of the next meeting at KRMA is shaping up as follows. A 90 minute meeting. The first hour with KRMA reviewing the Mt. Morrison application and providing more detail on some of the finer technical merits. Then, Peter McNally would join the group where we could have a rational, civil discussion of how the two proposals can co-exist and help the group decide which one(s) to support.

James is out of town until Monday. When he returns, a meeting date will be set.

John in Jeffco

Beautiful letter Geof......

Originally posted by Geof
Not from what we were told at the LCG meeting last Tuesday. Pete said that the number of viewers would decrease but the coverage area (in square miles) would increase. They'd be losing viewers along the Front Range and gaining a few in the Eastern Plains, but that is not in their primary coverage area.

Nonetheless I have slightly modified the sentence...I think this takes care of your concern...

My bad. I looked at the most handy report and it showed that Squaw loses about 21,000 viewers as compared to Lookout (out of 2.8 million viewers) using 2000 Census numbers.

Sorry about the error.

-Wabisabi

Wabisabi, No problem, thanks for clearing that up.

Pookers, you're too kind.

Jonhty, I hope they have a coherent story - I assume they'll be discussing this well before we meet with them.

I had to mail my DST-3000 back to Toshiba, that no APG was bugging me.
So I am HDTV disabled for awhile......sniff...sniff........

On a lighter note, I can still watch 480p DVD's !!!!
Mommie Dearest in DD 5.1 is cool........

Did anyone else have audio problems during the Final Four games today. Several times during the day, in particular during the last minutes of the KU game, the audio was very choppy and very poor. I tired two different OTA stb's and had the same problem. I know I am on the fringe for reception, but the video was always fine (if you ignore the disaster CBS created with the mixture of HD and SD cameras--see other threads). It was so bad I had to switch to the audio feed from another non-hd source just to listen to the gmae.

I was out and about so I didnt see much of the games last night, but in general I've still noticed sound issues quite a bit on 35 while watching HD during the weekly shows. Sometimes out of breaks it seems, it comes back kind of "choppy and tinny", if you will. Then seems to correct itself after awhile.

I was having some problems last night as well. Ch. 35 video was blinking out every few seconds and audio was high pitched with digital "static" (on my Panasonic DST51). But then I also couldn't pick up KRMA-18 so I figured it was having a problem with my antenna. Rather than spend the time to figure out what was going on I switch to the Dish Network CBS feed. It's nice having a choice.

Michael

I had sound problems during the game as well. I thought it was my Sony but I reset it and that didn't do any good. I just left it on and if finally it cleared up after a while. Then went out again later.

It was kind of a bummer because we had about 20 people over to watch the games. The all liked the picture thought.

Glad to hear I was not the only one with a audio problem on Sat. night. I switched over to the audio from the C-Band KCNC and used that since the audio delay was nearly equal to the delay on the digital channel. It worked pretty well that way although it was off just a bit. I also saw channel 18 off the air after the game was over, so it was not a good night for OTA digital tv in this area (much like every other night)!

I heard a reference on KUSA news this morning to the towers in the business segment just after 6 AM. They mentioned a plan to consolidate 4 towers down to 1 smaller tower, and then mentioned the public meetings including the one on the 16'th in Jeffco. I don't recall hearing them mention digital tv though, as I simply heard them mention the 'tower consolidation plan'. I wasn't paying close attention when it came on as I was just listening to the news while I got ready for work. Did anyone else catch that story? Has anyone else heard anything on the other channels?

Wow! I was watching 9News 6am this morning, and the first story on Gregg Moss's business section was...the tower! He mentioned that channels 4, 6, 7, 9, and 20 are trying to build one new tower that would transmit analog and digital stations for the Lake Cedar Group members (didn't mention that the old towers would be removed :(). He said that there was lots of opposition from BANANAs (my word, not his) and that there was a public meeting April 16 at the Taj Mahal. There's supposed to be info about the public meetings here: http://www.9news.com/money/default.asp later today.

Hey jm -- maybe that guy from Channel 9 WAS paying attention to your rant :)

----------

David Layne at Channel 4 indicated that if we experience any audio/video problems on channel 35, he'd like to hear about it: dlayne@cbs.com Since Channel 4 is still their bread and butter, they can't monitor it at closely as they'd like. They also check this thread every day.

Hey JM: I know this is off topic but I noticed your reference to KCNC's signal on C-Band. What do you know about the PQ from F1? It seems to be far worse than any other bird I target. KCNC has sparkles, KUSA shows occasional banding, etc.

Hey, Maybe we can start a new thread to bug the engineers about!

Mike

The tower story is up on 9News' website now: http://www.9news.com/storyfull-business.asp?id=1717

Here's the text:
---------------------------
Public hearings on Lookout Mountain TV towers
Written by: 9NEWS Business Reporter Gregg Moss
April 01, 2002 - 9:10 AM

A series of public hearings will take place this week about a proposal to replace four existing TV broadcast towers on Lookout Mountain with one shorter tower.

The Lake Cedar Group, made up of all the major stations in the metro area, is pushing the idea. The new tower would accommodate all analog and digital antennas for the stations.

Plans for the tower consolidation will be presented at 5 p.m. Tuesday in the Jefferson County Airport Terminal Building; 6 p.m. Wednesday in Boettcher Mansion in Golden, 6 p.m. Thursday at Historic El Rancho, and 7 p.m. April 16 in the Jefferson County administration building.

The first three meetings will be fairly informal and allow more one-on-one discussion. The April 16 session will be a formal community meeting. No date has been set for a hearing before the Jefferson County Planning Commission.

dr_mal
Thanks for posting the link. The article on the web seems identical to what I heard this morning on the telecast. It does say the tower would 'replace' four existing towers, just not much detail about why. I am glad to hear it finally make the news. It is true that information like this can be made public in a news cast, since it does not take a position in favor or opposed to the towers, but simply presents the news of the proposal and the hearings. Maybe they were indeed finally listening. I just hope it gets repeated on the evening news when more people are listening. At six in the morning, I hadn't even had my coffee yet, so my brain was not functioning. I also am just getting back to work after some vacation, so I didn't want to be held responsible for anything I heard this morning. I don't usually get to see any of the evening news casts from any of the channels for various reasons, so if anyone hears anything tonight or on any of the other channels, please post the information here so we will know the news is getting out.


******
Originally posted by MRinDenver
Hey JM: I know this is off topic but I noticed your reference to KCNC's signal on C-Band. What do you know about the PQ from F1? It seems to be far worse than any other bird I target. KCNC has sparkles, KUSA shows occasional banding, etc.

Hey, Maybe we can start a new thread to bug the engineers about!

Mike

I will try not to stray too far off topic here, but I can add a little information here. the satellite F1 was replaced about a year and a half ago by SES-Americom with a new satellite AMC-7, although it is still commonly referred to as F1 or C1 from the old days. You can get some information on the satellite and its footprint on the SES-Americom page at:

http://www.ses-americom.com/satellites/amc-7.html

As for the signal, I am not sure where the head is located for the feeds here in Colorado, but the signals used appears to be originated from OTA reception. As such you are correct, there is often some multipath visible on the KUSA signal. The KMGH signal has often had some minor color setting problems, but I have usually had a great signal from KCNC. I have used these feeds for years. I lived on the east coast outside of Philly for about 15 years and used these feeds to receive the Denver locals so I could watch my beloved Broncos and Buffs games as well as keep up with local news. (I was born and grew up in Colorado, and 'you can take the kid out of Colorado, but you can't take Colorado out of the kid').

In order to receive the signal on the east coast the location 137ÁW was about 12Á above the horizon and far west, and I purchased a 12 foot antenna just to close the link. From the east coast I often had 'sparklies' on KWGN as a function of the atmospheric conditions since the signal was so low on the horizon. The old C1 bird had very low gain on the east coast as well. When I moved back home to Colorado in 1997, I brought the big BUD with me and put it up here. With the 12 footer here in Colorado, I have honestly never seen any 'sparklies' since I put it up. With the new satellite, I now get great reception on all of the channels. Since I still can't get a decent picture on KWGN from over the air, it is pretty much the only way I can get that channel.

As for KUSA, I still get some multipath imaging on their signal, although it is not as bad as it used to be. I get a lot more multipath via the OTA signal, so it is still the cleanest feed available other than using a national NBC affiliate feed. I am not sure complaining to their engineers would help, as I do not think they are responsible for the actual uplink on the C-Band feed. I think one of the C-Band cable service providers actually provides the signal for C-Band. It might be worth a note to their engineering staff though. If KUSA really does provide the uplink, they should indeed put some work into cleaning it up. Also now, KRMA has gone of the air in the videocipher format and is now transmitted on Galaxy 11 in a Digicipher 2 format, but surprisingly, is not available by subscription. I am not sure why they did that, except there are so many PBS feeds available that they may not have realized very much revenue from their C-Band feed. One thing is for sure, these feeds were a real 'lifesaver' for me while I lived on the east coast. Of course, I had to 'fib' a little about my OTA reception from Philly in order to subscribe to those channels back east, but I was 'grandfathered' when the SHVA act came in, so I was safe then. Fortunately, none of the Philly stations ever contested my ability to receive out of market network, as I would have been a 'dead duck' if they had. I was easily well within their coverage area in those days. I think I got the original signal before anyone much cared, and when it became a hot issue I had received it for so long that no one bothered to contest it. All I know is it worked for me while I lived there.

OK, back onto topic now!

PS-added after the original post


On the topic of HD, it would be interesting to know if there are any plans to add or convert these C-Band cable feeds over to HD Digital formats in the future. These feeds one of only two network C-Band feeds left since they are used for the various cableco's around the Colorado resort areas and into Wyoming and New Mexico for remote mountain locations. I wonder if they will stay with a downrezed analog or digital version, or actually transmit the full resolution HD digital at some point. Of course it is only speculation at the moment since only KDVR, KMGH and KCNC would have digital feeds available in the first place. One of the reasons I really look forward to DTV is that I can finally eliminate all the da*n multipath on my OTA reception here in the Boulder area. Yes, I know, we are years away from that option.

There was an article in todays Denver Post on the Lookout Mountain Tower for Lake Cedar Group.

The article can be seen here (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E498634,00.html)

I liked the KCNC Meeting last week.

Denver Post Article (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E498634,00.html)

No new information here, but it is publicity.

-Wabisabi

Look above two posts at the same time on the Denver Post Article. Great minds think alike.

Wow - finally a little publicity. And I'm very glad the LCG people got the quote in there about if digital broadcasts happen from another location the towers on Lookout will be there indefinitely. That statement right there should (hopefully - wishful thinking I know) move this process forward. If the S(CARE) folks oppose the LCG app then by definition they support keeping all of the towers on Lookout with all of their assiciated problems indefinitely. Love that word!

The (S)CARE folks think a study to be released in '04 will show that RF is dangerous and increases the probability of getting cancer. Because of this they think ALL towers will have to be removed from Lookout (and, I presume, any anywhere else they are located next to a large population base)....So, the bottom line is fight to keep new tower(s) from being built and wait till '04 when the study is released and then fight to get all the remaining towers taken down. They will fight this, I can promise you that....

I have been catching up on the posts over the last week, and although I get a sense that some people interested in another meeting with Ken Smith of Bear Creek Development/KRMA folks, I do not get the sense of a groundswell to set up such a meeting. Do I read the forum correctly on that one, or should we try to set up this meeting. It obviously must happen before the 16'th.

It is interesting to note that since the (S)CARE folks have now changed their position and agreed they cannot in 'good conscience' support towers on Eldorado either, that their position now is apparently no RF towers should be allowed anywhere. It is an 'interesting' position indeed! One wonders, since exposure to the sun has been shown to possibly cause skin cancer, what their position is toward the sun remaining in the sky???? :D

I think you are correct Geof, we can expect them to fight this application, to at least delay it until that study is finished. Of course, if the study, as might be expected, shows there is not a provable direct link, but cannot totally discount the possibility of such a link, we are 'back where we started' which would of course be 'prove to me it does NOT cause health problems'. We know the folks in (S)CARE spend a lot of hours at night wide awake thinking about this.

Just wanted to see who may be attending the open houses:

Tues., April 2, 2002 - 5 to 8 pm. Jeffco Airport, Broomfield

Weds., April 3, 2002 - 6 to 9 pm, Boettcher Mansion, Golden

Thurs., April 4, 2002 - 6 to 9 pm, Historic El Rancho, Golden


I realize most folks plan on turning out on April 16th at 7 pm for the formal community meeting. However, the LCG indicated that we could provide support by showing up at the open houses and offering our perspective on these issues.

I am planning on attending one or both of the open houses on Weds and Thurs as these are close by my home. The Boettcher Mansion is located on Lookout Mtn and I would imagine this open house would have the most CARE folks in attendance, other than the formal meeting on April 16.

I have participated in these open houses before and you can make a difference by discussing the facts and informing people of your perspective. There is a lot of propraganda and junk science being pushed by CARE that only serves their agenda. You may never change some people's minds, but at least you can give them something to think about other than what they have heard from CARE.

I really get annoyed with the one-sided coverage of this issue in my community as there are public announcements being boradcast for fundraisers to raise money to fight against the Lookout Mtn. towers on the Channel 3 for cable TV in the foothills area.

Will anyone attend the open house tomorrow night at Jeffco airport? If so, please try to approach people attending and see where they stand on the tower consoldiation plan. Openly discuss and debate the issues with them. I believe our position and responses will be perceived as being even more credible than those from LCG, as we are customers and consumers who have a stake in DTV and not just broadcasters.

mtnhigh,

I agree that the more we support the LCG proposal the better, including showing up at these "informative" meetings. I don't know how many if any I will make it too, but thanks for putting it on my radar.

Also, a PBS HD heads-up...

The program Shape of Life # 101 will be fed in HD on Tuesday, 4/2 at 19:00 & 22:00 (MT). The frequency will be on DT2A (RX-IF=1379).

Please see that it is broadcast on KRMA- DT 18.

-John

Pardon the interuption ;)

Dustin (smithdzd) please check your PM.

Back at it!
Oh, it's good to see the tower getting some pub :)

I turned on channel 4 to watch the Final Four tonight. Just for giggles, I channeled up 2 spots to channel 4-1, where my Mits receiver maps KCNC-DT. I didn't figure it would give me anything, but worth a shot with all the pre-game nonsense anyway. When I got there, I got a snowy (analog) picture of the Avs game (which is on channel 20 tonight).:confused: Anyone have any ideas why I would get channel 20 there?

Also: KRMA-DT is at 6-1 but I just get a black screen, KMGH-DT is at 7-1 and I get the PAX analog feed of that (snowy, but slightly better than 20). (Nothing for KUSA-DT:confused: :rolleyes: )

-Mike

jm,
I don't care if there is a meeting or not. I will try to attend if there is one but will be out of town most of next week. I do believe the folks need to work on the answers for why there are two proposals for KRMA and that doesn't need to include us. I also believe they are stronger if KRMA pulls the Morrison App and only re-submits if and when the Lookout app is rejected.

Personally I am going to support the LCG app. I like it and think it makes sense. The Morrison app does too but the LCG gets 5 stations on the air whereas Morrison does not. I am not going to oppose the Morrison app but neither will I support it. I am not going to write any letters for it be them yea or nay. I will write a letter for the LCG app when the time is appropriate. I hope several folks can attend the meetings and report back. I think mtnhigh is correct about it being important.....

Originally posted by mtnhigh
Weds., April 3, 2002 - 6 to 9 pm, Boettcher Mansion, Golden

Tues., April 16, 2002 - 7 to 9 pm, Jefferson County Courthouse, Golden
I'll be at the above two meetings

Geof: I think you and I are in agreement.

JM, thanks for the C-band info. I too, have a twelve footer IMBY. I'm still considering 4DTV.

I'm planning on being at the April 16th meeting, but won't be able to make any of the sessions this week.

Hello everyone,

I just returned from the Jeffco airport meeting. I could perceive no changes from last week. I did get to submit my comments...

It was pretty slow and laid back. There were about a dozen people who had signed in when I left the meeting at 5:30. Of those dozen were a few from (s)care, including a certain technical guy who used to post in this forum. The LCG did have their RF guy there.

I expect a bigger turnout the next 3 meetings in that Jeffco airport is somewhat out of the way. I plan to attend the formal meeting on the 16th.

Don

What did the (s)care people have to say when presented with the facts? I really, really, want to hear someone from (s)care say that they DON'T want the new tower built, and ergo, want HIGHER RF (based on LCG's data that the new tower with directional antennas would lower the RF, even with digital and analog stations transmitting) on Lookout Mountain for the forseeable future. Did any of them bring their children or were they too afraid to look them in the eye? I'm sorry -- I'll go eat some supper now and maybe I'll be a bit less cranky :)

I talked to Ken Smith today. He states that KRMA really wants to host us again with both James and Peter from the LCG group present. They would like to do it before the 4/16 LCG meeting but the Auction is presenting some scheduling challenges.

I have urged both parties to have a coherant strategy before talking to us. Personally, I would very much like to hear why or how we could support both proposals. I think the LCG solution is most logical. I also think that logic doesn't apply and that the Jeffco Commisioners will make an expedient political decision. It is quite possible that Mt. Morrison will be approved and the LCG application will lose.

If that happens, what's the gameplan?

I may know tomorrow the meeting's date.

John in Jeffco

This post is primarily intended for the member stations of the LCG. I was the most vocal person to go off on a rant at the LCG meeting last week on the subject of the need for PSA's and public education about HDTV and DTV. I think it is necessary to inform the public about the distinctions between these modes and digital TV signals already available on cable and other outlets. I thought I might use a letter to the editor in this morning's Boulder Daily Camera to Illustrate my point. This author is opposed to the Eldorado Towers, but seems to believe that satellite transmission of all DTV and HDTV signals to every city and every home is easily done.

The letter can be found at:
http://www.thedailycamera.com/opinion/letters/03elett.html

but I will take the liberty to reproduce it here as well.

*********
TOWERS


Eldorado should not be tarnished


One of the last unspoiled areas of the Front Range is threatened; the proposed Eldorado television tower would harm this area for generations. The Florida-based antenna company says no one lives within a mile. This area, which includes Eldorado State Park, Boulder and Jefferson County Open Spaces, has been preserved by local and state citizens who value our environment. This area was not planned to be an ideal spot for an 450-foot-high television tower.

The current zoning does not allow, and should not be changed to allow, the installation of this unnecessary, immense structure. Zoning-law changes are often sought by businesses seeking profit. Zoning laws are in place to protect the community, and the community's wishes should come first.

As reported, there is questionable need for this tower. Presently, a Denver-based company owns three geostationary broadband spacecraft that service the entire country with digital television. In the 21st century, Earth-based antennae are unnecessary.

RF radiation hazards should not be ignored; levels which are hazardous are known; levels which might be hazardous are not. The structure will be visible to thousands of residents and visitors, and ruin the attractiveness of our counties. This area needs to be preserved for all.

JAMES MURRAY

Golden

***********

You will note from the third paragraph, the Mr. Murray creates the illusion that enough satellite capacity exists to provide DTV and HDTV local signals to each and every city in the country. I believe this is the PRIMARY reason that PSA's are necessary to educate the public on the technical differences of the various transmission modes. At this time, this is every bit as important as informing the public about the new tower designs for Lookout and Mt. Morrison. The public must first understand that there is indeed a need for the new towers.

Since we know that the folks at KCNC read this forum, and I suspect as well, the folks from KRMA, KUSA and KMGH as well, I hope you will pass this up to your station managers so they will realize the need for some PSA's on your stations to clarify the technologies and the issues for the public so that mis-perceptions like this gentleman have, can be corrected.

I will now attempt to climb down from my soapbox without falling!

"Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Hey, LCG, if you don't educate the public, the Luddites, like Mr. Murray, will turn your towers into scrap metal. If I had your platform to speak from, I'd find a way to tell the digital tv story without a political slant.

You guys are smart; you can do it.

Or you can leave the education to the Mr. Murrays of this world. And, if you won't stand up for yourselves, why should we? Especially when we can get the same signals from "three geostationary broadband spacecraft that serve the entire country with digital television".

Originally posted by JMartinko

As reported, there is questionable need for this tower. Presently, a Denver-based company owns three geostationary broadband spacecraft that service the entire country with digital television. In the 21st century, Earth-based antennae are unnecessary.

JAMES MURRAY



James, James, James,..tsk tsk tsk. But as you guys are saying, it's not really his fault that he's clueless as to what true digital television really is.

Course, it could be argued that he and the millions like him out there wouldnt care anyway at this point even if they did know the difference as long as cable wont/cant deliver them the signals or as long as tuners cost 500.00+.

But I realize thats a whole nother issue entirely.

I will go one step further and predict another rejected proposal application unless the reasons for a new tower become clear. PSA's are not only smart but I believe they are necessary if the LCG app is to have a decent chance of passage. The (S)CARE folks and other folks opposing new towers have "critical mass" (there are a lot of them). The only way to overcome that is to generate your own critical mass and without PSA's that isn't going to happen. The 24 AVS'ers who attended the meeting aren't going to be enough.

As jm correctly noted during the meeting, PSA's do not have to even mention the tower situation - talk about digital TV, High Definition TV, The FCC mandate, What it will take to implement the mandate, and how the DBS companies (company) will not be able to provide this service. These are all facts that do not require "equal time" for the opposition.

We shall see just how serious the LCG is about getting their new proposal passed. If they aren't willing to try and inform the public through PSA's I may just sit by the wayside and watch the whole debacle unfold before me.


On a different note - it looks like KDVR has resolved their lipsync issue. I noticed no problem the last few times I watched DT 31. However, I still notice absolutely horrible effects in dark portions of the picture (notably on X-Files).

Originally posted by Geof

On a different note - it looks like KDVR has resolved their lipsync issue. I noticed no problem the last few times I watched DT 31. However, I still notice absolutely horrible effects in dark portions of the picture (notably on X-Files).

I agree with you Geof. I'm not sure if the anomalies have something to do with KDVR or if thats just the nature of the broadcasts. I dont have any other 480p Fox widescreen channels to compare them to anymore. Either way, while it's certainly better than just the crummy old analog broadcast (more comparable to a crappy DVD transfer), it's not good enough to compel me to give some of their shows a chance, as true HD on CBS and ABC have caused me to do.

I know some would find it ridiculous that I might value presentation as much as content at least to kick start my interest in a given show, but thats my perogative now isnt it? ;)

I completely agree that educating the public, and more importantly, the Jeffco Board is very critical. Even during the last LCG application, testimony was presented that "Digital TV" is already available from cable and satellite. I'm sure that this confused the Board to some extent.

-Wabisabi

I offer my agreement with the above statements. Most of the people that I have asked to sign the petition have thought the same way - we can already get digital television from cable and satellite. Big time misundertanding by the general public that needs to be corrected if the proposals have any chance of success.

On a brighter note, did anyone else catch "The Shape of Life" last night on PBS? I thought it was phenomenal. First time I have seen underwater HD photography, and most of it was stunning!

Originally posted by markdl

On a brighter note, did anyone else catch "The Shape of Life" last night on PBS? I thought it was phenomenal. First time I have seen underwater HD photography, and most of it was stunning!

You got that right Mark, incredible! Theres actually an underwater show on HDNet these days called "The Last Frontier" that has even more of an Holy Sh** factor (if thats possible) IMO, though it's far shorter in length, but when it comes to sweet HD productions it sure is hard to beat some of what PBS shows.

I too caught the "Shape of Life" last night. What an outstanding program. There were some great underwater shots in the PBS loop a couple of years back, but the shots of the sponges etc. were really spectacular. That program would not only sell HD sets, but it was educational too! Great programming, congratulations to PBS and KRMA for that show.

(Back on topic, according to James from the newspaper, I suppose it would have looked just as good on the Direct TV digital local KRMA feed--sorry I missed that version). :D

Originally posted by markdl
I offer my agreement with the above statements. Most of the people that I have asked to sign the petition have thought the same way - we can already get digital television from cable and satellite. Big time misunderstanding by the general public that needs to be corrected if the proposals have any chance of success.

Mark
I had the same reaction just this morning. I asked someone I know to sign the petition and his reaction (and I am NOT making this up) was "I won't sign anything like that, I already get those channels on cable, we don't need any antennas in the area anymore, they are just an eyesore"! I asked him if he thought people who did not have cable were not entitled to watch TV, and he laughed. He said "I don't care, they can always have the analog signal." I told him that would be shut off and he said that they will just have to get cable of satellite. He really was very angry that I had asked. I gave him copies of the LCG and KRMA descriptions and asked him to read it and get back to me. This guy is a mechanical engineer, so even technical folks don't always understand the DTV mandate.

I hear you guys loud and clear, and could not agree with you more. The DTV ignorance factor is a real dilemma.

I certainly do not understand the legal requirements for why broadcast towers are still needed when there are cable TV networks and satellite feeds available. Yet, there are probably some compelling reasons why TV stations are required by the FCC to locally broadcast OTA. Some of these reasons may be:

1. There are still many people who can't afford or justify the expense for obtaining cable or satellite signals to watch their TV. Some of these folks may be in the metro area, while other are at more remote locations. Broadcaster and their advertisers want to reach this population base too.

2. Free, OTA broadcasting is part of our history, culture, and fabric of our society. Although there may not be anything that is truly "free", OTA broadcasts represents a part of our past that we are not ready to give up.

3. Most importantly, local OTA broadcasts (both radio and TV) are a very important medium for forecasting warnings and other public service information. Although most of these warnings apply to weather, certainly local broadcasting would be critical for other disasters such as wild fire, earthquakes, and even terrorist acts. If our air, food or water resources were poisoned by terrorists, how would we get the word out to everyone without broadcast towers for radio and TV. If public OTA broadcasting will continue to be valuable to our community, particularly in times of crisis, then I do not believe it is in all of our interest to remove broadcast towers just because they are an eyesore and "digital" TV can be provided by cable and satellite.

Regardless of whether HDTV signals are broadcast or not, there will still be a need for towers to provide both local TV and radio OTA broadcasts.

Don't most cable companies still rely on OTA broadcast to receive many local channels for re-distribution to subscribers?

If not, why does the quality of the locals I receive over cable match, in a relative way, the quality of the OTA signal available here?

Anyway, even though cable/satellite penetration is high, there are also a lot of portables, etc. that rely on reception via an OTA antenna. Unfortunately, digital TV has a long way to go in that area, though it will eventually get there.

Mark

Attended the open house at Boetcher Mansion which is in the heart of Lookout Mtn and has towers on both sides of it. There were probably 50 people who attended including top CARE folks and at 5 or 6 InterMountain reps for the LCG. From my perspective, the open house was successful in allowing the community to understand the LCG proposal. Kudos to the LCG group.

There were a few more poster boards displayed than those shown at the KCNC meeting. One of particular interest was a bar chart comparing RF exposure levels as follows:

100 mg/sq cm - observed physiological or "thermal" effect

2.0 mw/sq cm - FCC Limit for occupational UHF exposure
1.0 mw/sq cm - FCC limit for occupational VHF exposure

0.4 mw/sq cm - FCC limit for public UHF exposure
0.2 mw/sq cm - FCC limit for public VHF exposure

The main point is that the predicted RF exposure levels will be several orders orders of magnitude lower than the thermal effect level and well below the levels for public exposure.

There was a video that explained the multicasting capabilities from a single DTV signal from a North Carolina station simultaneously broadcasting on a Saturday afternoon a NC college basketball game, reports on a flood in a part of the station's coverage area, and the weather forecast showing where the storm was heading and further flooding was likely. All of these broadcasts could be received OTA. I thought the video was informative, but the quality was subpar. Nevertheless, the video was effective in showing that DTV is a technology that has many benefits besides the WOW picture quality factor.

I did not believe the open house poster boards addressed the zoning issues raised by CARE, even though I may not understand all the specifics. I am be confused, but I thought zoning was one of the issues that CARE was challenging Jeffco on to deny any proposals for towers on Lookout Mtn.

The open house also does not educate the layman on DTV broadcast technology as compared to digital cable and satellite signals. I do not profess to be an expert, but obviously the ignorance factor in getting the layman to give a damn is working against proponents for the LCG proposal.
The Intermountain folks have heard our message. Hopefully, they will address this with Jeffco during the community meeting.

I left written comments on these two issues in a jar provided at the open house.


I picked up a Spring 2002 copy of the City and Mountain Views at the open house. There are several one-sided articles about the towers on Lookout Mtn. One article discusses the alleged threats by Denver broadcast attorneys to implement "takings" litigation for the tower lands and implies that there has been economic terrorism of broadcast towers in residential areas. "The multi-billion dollar corporations do not have the grandfathered right to mutilate historical properties, severely pollute the area and deflate the value of legitimate residential land use.." Its these types of unsubstantiated and sensationalist comments that hurt CARE's credibility and quite frankly, make me want to hurl. The article continues to discuss case law on "takings" for the "best and highest use of land".

Another article compares the four proposed site:Squaw, El Dorado, M<orrison and Lookout. A comparison of the altitude, visual impact, wildlife and recreational impact, nearby population, historic sites, effected radiation power, road access, zoning, wind/weather, metro population coverage, shadow areas, best known coverage, repeaters, heliport, engineer residence, market value of site, and real estate tax is provided. The article states that hundreds of zoning violations exist at Lookout Mtn. Only 50 permits were filed for 1000+ RF devices on Lookout Mtn.

Well that's it for my amateur journalism. Hope the forum members find this informative.

Great report! Could you get a feel for how the (s)care people responded to the proposal? Did they appear to be "up in arms" or did they leave with the impression that maybe this isn't such a bad idea? Did you get a chance to talk to any of them one on one to see if they had any objections that haven't been widely publicized already?

Which of the four sites did the (s)care propoganda paper consider to be the best for any new tower(s)?

Originally posted by dr_mal
Great report! Could you get a feel for how the (s)care people responded to the proposal? Did they appear to be "up in arms" or did they leave with the impression that maybe this isn't such a bad idea? Did you get a chance to talk to any of them one on one to see if they had any objections that haven't been widely publicized already?

Which of the four sites did the (s)care propoganda paper consider to be the best for any new tower(s)?

1. I got the impression that the CARE folks viewed this as an improvement over the last proposal, but there are still other towers and sources to contend with. I would imagine that the most fervent CARE folks will only be satisfied if all towers were moved to another location.

2. While I was there, the people attending were fairly subdued. No one raised their voice or brought attention to themselves or the exhibits that distracted others. There were groups of people huddling in the corner from time to time that seemed to distance themselves from the PR folks.

3. I had a chance to talk to a few people, but it was not easy to associate folks with their organization. I got the sense that many residents mistrust the broadcasters based on the fact that permits and RF levels had not been self enforced in the past.

4. The article does not clearly state which site is best. If you evaluate the criteria used for the comparison, the article, which is more of a table, implies that El Dorado or Squaw are the best sites due to zoning, visual and land use impact, and local population exposure.

I got the sense that many residents mistrust the broadcasters based on the fact that permits and RF levels had not been self enforced in the past.I believe this is an accurate statement. Past sins are catching up to the broadcasters. That is exactly why I posed the pre-meeting question: "Are they going to address how they will insure they comply with RF safety levels. In the past they've been caught with their pants down (so to speak) claiming to meet all FCC regualtions yet the (S)CARE Engineers have proved otherwise. This doesn't help their credibility - are they going to propose something to negate the lack of trust the stations have created for themselves? (On page 72 of this thread) .

The good news here is that the LCG will help JeffCo fund RF monitoring and will enter into a legal agreement to resolve problem areas within "X-amount" of time. I was very happy to hear this because I think something along these lines had to be done to have any chance of getting this approved.

Thanks for the report & comments mtnhigh…..

I was also at the Boettcher Mansion Meeting last night from 5PM to 8PM. I arrived early so I can also drive around and see the towers, their physical layout, and the neighboring houses. I felt if I truly was going to support this thing I should take a first hand look at the actual site. Wow, the 830' KCNC tower is really huge with equally impressive guy wires! I think its a good application feature that the consolidated tower is 720' and placed at least 720' from any existing house (hope my numbers are correct). During the meeting, I mostly just observed the conversations of others. Ken Smith (Mt Morrison application) also came to observe.

In addition to Peter McNally and Fred Niehaus(sp?), the LCG had 2 guys present from the architectural firm that was used for the site changes (they did those before/after posters) and an "RF Guy" (sorry, I didn't catch his name -- he was referred to as the RF Guy all evening). There was only 1 broadcaster represented: the general manager from KCNC Marv Rockford, who spoke to many people who attended.

I was very interested in getting a feel for the 'climate' of the meeting since I had never been to anything like this with such opposing participants. The overall atmosphere was very cordial. The local residents asked alot of questions concerning the RF levels and RF interference and potential remedies (I didn't realize that those few households immediately next to the towers experienced bizarre EMR interference issues). There were some mistaken impressions that I hope were corrected last night. For instance, someone questioned the increase in RF levels when multiple DTV sub-channels were used to broadcast multiple standard definition(SD) channels. Of course it is obvious to us that the RF levels do not change when broadcasting 1 HD channel or 4 SD sub-channels. There was one woman who was quite caustic in attitude and even repeatably accused the GM of KCNC of killing people! I felt like asking her if he hit someone while driving up Lookout Mtn Rd. This same woman insisted JeffCo had been given "engineering studys" that "proved" there were better sites than Lookout Mtn to broadcast from, and she would not be convinced otherwise. She accused the LCG of making a stand on Lookout just to be spiteful! Hopefully, the majority of the (S)CARE folks will not be so selectively blind to some of the incontrovertible facts presented in this application.

The LCG's claim that a rejected application would result in the status quo regarding number of towers and the RF levels, was met with retorts of eventually having a JeffCo Board that would somehow remove all towers from Lookout (even JeffCo's own facilities). This, of course, is a fantasy that the (S)CARE folks have indulged themselves with and may be unwilling to wake up from. Also feeding that fantasy is the prevalent misguided notion that broadcast TV would eventually disappear entirely and hence the towers with it. That notion is probably partly due to the previously mentioned misunderstanding regarding digital cable and satellite forms of the local network feeds. In actuality, the advent of broadcast DTV and HDTV will only result in a resurgence of OTA Network viewing. It's been noted many times across all threads in this forum how viewing habits have returned to network programming simply because a show is in HDTV.

Although the application offers improvements in all issues presented by the local community, I think the opponents are (S)CARE'd to allow a precedent to be set, and that may be a difficult thing to assuage. After all, this application is a request to rezone the collective LCG parcels from Mtn. Res. to Planned Development which I assume will give the broadcasters an easier time when making any future equipment changes. (S)CARE probably also believes that if they have a 0.1% chance of eventually getting all towers removed from Lookout, once approved, this application makes that 0% chance. Of course that should not be reason enough to deny the application.

Well, that probably amounts to more than 2¢ worth of opinion, but I'm making up for lurking a long time.

Thanks Ron (and again thanks to mtnhigh).

Your collective comments reinforce my beliefs that getting this passed will be no easy feat. I think in the past the broadcasters had an arrogant attitude. I hope they've awakened to the fact that just because they do TV and have a major audience every night it doesn't make them invincible. Hopefully they are learning from these meetings and not dismissing anything out of hand. The woman you mentioned sounded irrational and emotional but this cannot be ignored. Sure, they're not going to convince everyone that their proposal is better than what they have but they need to at least try and address concerns about them "killing people". While they will never be able to totally dispute emotional and irrational concerns they do need to try and attack those issues with facts. During our meeting I asked the question if they knew how their predicted RF levels compared to other cities/other tower locations. They didn't know. Well damn it they need to know, they need to be able to tell folks that the new tower will blast them with the highest RF power levels ever witnessed on earth or whether the predicted power levels will be lower than LA/NYC/Chicago, etc... Give people some basis for comparison. Who the hell understands mW/Cm^2 (other than jm and a few other engineers). Stuff like this needs to be put into perspective for the average citizen otherwise it's meaningless techno-babble. Conversely, if you can tell them they will be seeing an RF level that is lower than 50 other cities/neighborhoods that means something - people can relate to that.

Interference is another concern altogether. Al Hislop brought that up and some folks have to deal with it on a daily basis. Unfortunately the technical aspects behind interference is over the head of the non-technical folks who just understand that "this damn thingy doesn't work right". IMO, the new tower will reduce this problem because the predicted RF levels are lower, and because most of the new RF power will be above CH 16. These higher frequencies will not be as much of a problem as frequencies in the Ch 4, 6 and FM band. Again, though, the LCG has to have answers. If they stumble around with stuff like "we'll get back to you on that" it creates an air of suspicion (it can be interpreted as "we need to figure out how to spin this into a good story).

The LCG faces and uphill battle with the new tower. (S)CARE will not go "quietly into the night". Critical mass is needed on the LCG side of the equation. Without it we we be needing BUD's and Canadian residences.....I hope Pete and Company are listening....

I am sorry I did not recognize you last night. I was somewhat distracted as I was there with my 10-year old son. He actually learned alot and also did not understand why the local residents would not want to support the LCG proposal and reduce the number of towers, RF levels, remove bldgs., etc.

Was the woman making the insipid remarks wearing a green leisure/sweatsuit? If so, you just met Carol Lomond, the publisher of the City and Mtn. Views, a Lookout Mtn. resident, advocate of CARE, and the writer of many of the sensationalized articles about the towers that I referred to in my previous post. My dignity precludes me from saying anything more about her vicious verbal attacks.

I spoke at length with the RF guy and he informed on how the RF level predictions were calculated. However, he did not the basis for why the FCC established the occupational and public exposure levels in terms of specific adverse impacts (i.e. cancer) and risk thresholds (i.e. EPA's one additional cancer incidence out of a million population exposed to the same level).

I agree with your insight that the CARE folks are against just the LCG proposal, they are against all existing and planned use of broadcast towers. I agree a proposal that removes 4 towers and adds one tower will not be supported by CARE.

"After all, this application is a request to rezone the collective LCG parcels from Mtn. Res. to Planned Development which I assume will give the broadcasters an easier time when making any future equipment changes."

Here's where I believe a legal issue can be challenged by CARE. There appears to have been poor zoning and enforcement by Jeffco for the past use of the towers and both the credibility of the broadcasters and Jeffco have been tarnished by their lack of attention to zoning issues. Nevertheless, I believe there may be legal recourse to rectify situation, but this may not be timely.

I still believe that even if the LCG is approved, the CARE attorneys will find a way to appeal and stay further action on the towers.

Originally posted by mtnhigh
I am sorry I did not recognize you last night. I was somewhat distracted as I was there with my 10-year old son.I saw you there but was (S)CARE'd of you. My spidey sense was out of whack.

Was the woman making the insipid remarks wearing a green leisure/sweatsuit? If so, you just met Carol Lomond, ... That's the one! And what a pleasure it was! I was especially impressed by Marv Rockford's response to her incessant badgering -- stone cold silence (with a smile). What could anyone say to an irrational person like that.

Originally posted by Geof
During our meeting I asked the question if they knew how their predicted RF levels compared to other cities/other tower locations. They didn't know. Well damn it they need to know, ... I'll have to disagree with you here Geof (for once). (S)CARE's contention is that there is no other city that has a similar situation: where there are residents in very close proximity AND at virtually the same elevation as the transmitting devices on the tower. Now that I have been there, I can see that for myself. Comparisons to other cities is immaterial and will be dismissed by (S)CARE because it is not the same. It would not help at all in persuasion.

OK here's my solution to the whole mess -- get (S)CARE, LCG, and JeffCo to agree to binding arbitration, if a suitably unbiased arbitor can be found! Probably not in CO and not in any federal gov agency. How about Judge Judy?!

I remember someone talking about the antennas that were on the WTC (prior to 9-11) and the Empire State Building. I'm thinking that New York has a much higher concentration of people working very close to RF. It would seem that New Yorkers would be a good case study. Same with Chicago compared to what we have here.

Did a quick check and found this link:
RF Safety from the Fed. (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/)

(S)CARE's contention is that there is no other city that has a similar situation: where there are residents in very close proximity AND at virtually the same elevation as the transmitting devices on the tower.I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense that (S)CARE would claim that. Otherwise they'd be arguing that every tower everywhere would be a problem.

However, I can't help but believe that a) there isn't a somewhat similar situation or b) even more to the point, there aren't neighborhood areas somewhere in the country where the RF levels are higher than the predicted values for the new tower. When it comes right down to it mW/cm^2 is a field strength reading and should be comparable to any other field strength reading regardless of the geometry or geography of the location - If the proposed RF level at the school on Lookout is .1mW/cm^2 and the readings at a school in New York is .2mW/cm^2 what difference does geography make? It is what it is regardless of whether or not (S)CARE wants to accept it.

Originally posted by dmunn
I'm thinking that New York has a much higher concentration of people working very close to RF. It would seem that New Yorkers would be a good case study. Same with Chicago compared to what we have here. Those transmitters are on the top of the tallest buildings and radiate horizontally. There are no people nearby at the same height as the transmitter. (S)CARE would argue it is not the same situation as here.

Geof
I agree with your b). I'm sure even though there is not a similar situation elsewhere in the country, there would be lots of examples of similar RF levels in populated areas, regardless the reasons or sources.

According to the data I saw on the poster with the RF map (if my memory serves), the reading at Ralston Elem School would drop to something like 1.8% of .2mW/cm² -- nearly unmeasurable.

It would be interesting to see what RF levels exist around other tower sites around the country. I do, however think that there may not be another location with the exact same situation as that of Lookout Mountain. Even the FCC, in OET Bulletin 56 states that:

Public access to broadcasting antennas is normally restricted so that individuals cannot be exposed to high-level fields that might exist near antennas. Measurements made by the FCC, EPA and others have shown that ambient RF radiation levels in inhabited areas near broadcasting facilities are typically well below the exposure levels recommended by current standards and guidelines (References 32, 46, 48, 51, 52). There have been a few situations around the country where RF levels in publicly accessible areas have been found to be higher than those recommended by applicable safety standards (e.g., see Reference 50). But, in spite of the relatively high operating powers of many stations, such cases are unusual, and members of the general public are unlikely to be exposed to RF levels from broadcast towers that exceed FCC limits. Wherever such situations have arisen corrective measures have been undertaken to ensure that areas promptly come into compliance with the applicable guidelines.

Reference 50 is:50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Electromagnetics Branch, Las Vegas, NV 89114.
"An Investigation of Radiofrequency Radiation Levels on Lookout Mountain, Jefferson County,
Colorado," (1987).

What does this all mean? I don't know, except that maybe all they could show is that no other community has RF levels that high. However, I would be very interested to see what the RF levels are at the homes near other tower sites.

It would be interesting to see what RF levels exist around other tower sites around the country. I do, however think that there may not be another location with the exact same situation as that of Lookout Mountain......

.....However, I would be very interested to see what the RF levels are at the homes near other tower sites.I guess my point was that it doesn't matter if Denver is unique. What matters are the RF levels. The reading is either high or low or somewhere in between. They are what they are regardless of geometry. I understand the readings are dependent upon many factors, some of which may be unique to Denver, but the bottom line is: What is the power density - who(s)cares how they got there. Whatever factors contribute to the readings don't really matter - what really matters is the RF field strength.

In that vein I (and evidently Wabisabi) think the LCG needs to know how their proposed levels compare to other areas of the country.

I found the following charts on CARE's website related to sources and power:

http://www.c-a-r-e.org/tower/tpower1.htm

Index of Charts:
1. Current and Proposed Electromagnetic Radiation poured into the community by towers

2. Sources by Percent Contribution (View Chart) [As of January 1, 2000]
Total Effective Radiated Power on Lookout Mountain (View Chart) [Includes predictions to the year 2002]

3. Effective Radiated Power on Lookout Mountain by Tower Source (View Chart) [Through 2002]

4. Latest Applications and Approvals for Increases to ERP on Lookout (View Chart) [Period from 1998 to 2002]

You need to go to the above URL to view the charts.


Here's the URL for distribution maps for RF levels and a table showing RF levels and alleged health effects prepared by CARE:

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

Please note that the RF levels for the proposed supertower (first proposal) are estimated to be much higher than what the LCG predicts in their second proposal. All of the levels in the table where adverse health effects were attributed to RF exposure are higher than the FCC standard of 0.2 mW/sq cm.

In their 1999 petition to the FCC, CARE proposes that a safe exposure level of 0.01 mW/sq cm be established, as compared to the FCC's level of 0.2 mW/sq cm for public exposure. CARE states that the FCC's level is based on thermal effects. During the LCG open house, one of the posters prepared by LCG indicated that 200 mW/sq cm was the threshold at which a physiological effect was observed based on "thermal effects". This does not mean any damage was done, only that a physiological effect was observed.

If I can recall correctly from the poster boards, predicted RF exposure levels at areas such as Ralston Elementary will be about 1 or 2 % of the 0.2mW/sq cm FCC standard, which is approaching the proposed CARE level. However, levels in the immediate vicinity of the new tower would be higher (roughly 50 to 80% of 0.2 mW/sq cm), yet still below the FCC standard.

Are there further opportunities to reduce the RF exposure levels if other broadcast sources (i.e. radio stations) are able to redesign/consolidate their broadcasting structures similar to what the LCG is proposing? This seems like this would be a logical question that Jeffco would ask to resolve CARE's concerns and effectively manage the broadcast towers on Lookout Mtn. moving forward. I would imagine that Jeffco would place a cap on EM levels that resulted from all broadcast sources on Lookout Mtn and make decisions in light of this cap.

I hope this sets the context of the debate on safe RF levels between those cited by CARE vs. the FCC standard. I am certain this will be a topic of major discussion by CARE during theJeffco formal meeting at the Taj Majal.

I will search the web and attempt to find out of there are any published reports on RF levels at other broadcast locations in the US.

Originally posted by mtnhigh
Please note that the RF levels for the proposed supertower (first proposal) are estimated to be much higher than what the LCG predicts in their second proposal. All of the levels in the table where adverse health effects were attributed to RF exposure are higher than the FCC standard of 0.2 mW/sq cm.


Actually, this chart lists the power in uW/sq cm, not mW/sq cm. (1,000uW/sq cm = 1mW/sq cm) So, some are higher, and some are lower.

-Wabisabi

Wabisabi,

Good catch. You are correct. I guess CARE wanted to use micro rather than milli units of measurement to impy that the numbers were high. Very sly.

mtnhigh
There are two significant issues involved in the power levels around a new tower (not counting transmitter power). One is the height of the tower, and therefore the height and the distance of the actual radiating elements from the residence under question. The higher the tower, the lower the radiation. The second, and even more important question, is the radiation pattern (i.e. directional gain) in the direction of any homes. At this point, the LCG has not released the report ( I asked them about it at the meeting) to show the gain of the antennas in each direction, other than the chart of field intensities they are showing at the meetings this week. They did not have that chart at our meeting. Without that information, it is not worth commenting on the levels in the area, since they can be changed by the antenna design or tuning.

All that being said, I would not give much credence to the (S)CARE projections since they also do not know the proposed design and radiation characteristics. Obviously, when Al Hislop prepared the (S)CARE information, he made all worst case assumptions and of course most likely assumed omni antennas with no directional characteristics used to reduce levels in the immediate area. That is a typical first assumption, but it doesn't fly in this case, at least according to what we were told by the LCG group. This is an issue where the devil will be in the details, and until we see the full radiation report, we can only speculate. I do not care (pardon any puns) to involve myself in any speculation or guesses as to the levels until I can see the reports, and I certainly am not in any position to question the FCC guideline. I will say that I have spent years working in an around antenna ranges and test facilities and high levels of RF, and I have not seen any cases of problems related to exposure to levels below the allowable limits.

As for other cities, I lived in Philly for many years and they have a similar concentration of antennas in the Roxborough area. There are many more stations involved in that market as well. There is an article in today's news about their setup.

http://www.newsalert.com/bin/story?StoryId=CpkQmuaicueqTvfyTve9xrvi&Topic=Digital%20TV&Nav=pr-prmynews-

They have temporary transmitters set up, but are trying to build a new tower to consolidate onto a single tower as well. Of course, according to the article, the neighbors are protesting and trying to prevent construction (gee, does this sound familiar). The difference in Philly is that most of the stations are already on the air from their existing towers. I recall reading a similar situation in Washington DC, where a new tower was stopped during construction while the local Nimby's fight it out! As for the concentrations, I would think the Philly sight would not only be similar to the Lookout site, but also contain more stations. They have been transmitting for years from that site as well. I would not have a clue as to where I could get access to the reports on those sites to compare levels. I will leave that up to the LCG group. Since Geof asked the question at our meeting, and it appears to have come up again in other meetings, I would hope the LCG will do their homework on this one. I would really be surprised if this area is all that unique, and I have never heard of any other site being shut down due to health problems while operating under the FCC allowable levels. The fact that I have not heard of it does not mean it hasn't happened though, we would have to pulse the FCC on that issue. I do feel confident though, that if there had ever been a case of a concentration of health problems at any site even though the radiation was within FCC limited levels, that the FCC would have reviewed and reduced the allowable levels. In reality, it appears they have reduced the allowable levels several times in the last decade or so, even in the absence of any evidence.

Pretty busy this week, so I can't spend a lot of time looking for information right now.

John,

I agree with your assertions that we have not seen the design and radiation considerations and until this is known, we can only speculate. I defer to you in this area as you are obviously experienced in tower design and operation and I am not.

However, I did see the maps presented by LCG at the open house of the former (prior to recent corrective action), existing, and predicted RF exposure levels distributed over the Lookout Mountain area. They even had a RF expert there to explain his findings. I would imagine that in order to produce the future map predicting RF levels from the LCG proposal #2, he had to input the tower design, power levels, etc. So this information must exist, but only its effect in terms of RF levels is being communicated to the public during these meeting. For this reason. I do not believe that the LCG is speculating. There are obviously predictions being made with some sort of mathematical model based on the tower design and radiation characteristics. I would suspect that CARE's maps do not take this into consideration and even if they did, the findings in their maps that I posted are based on the previous tower design, not the second proposed design.

I am trying to compare and understand the findings from CARE with those from LCG. I believe this is what Jeffco will do and as you say will need to dig into the devilish details to understand the underlying bases and assumptions.

My intent in all of this is to try to facilitate an understanding of what is being said by CARE and LCG so we can be better informed and prepared to debate the issues in an effective manner. I hope the LCG group is reviewing this forum thread so that they can see for themselves how these highly technical and political issues play out among ourselves in trying to understand these issues and what makes sense in terms of a workable solution.

If you don't know the rules and the basics, your team will lose the game.

mtnhigh
You are correct in what you are trying to do. Obviously since the LCG has produced the maps that show the predicted radiation levels, they obviously know (they would have to in order to make the application) the antenna gains they can expect. I am just saying that without that level of detail of information, I could not confirm, reject or even have an opinion as to the accuracy of the predictions. I would expect, however, that the LCG predictions have been prepared in a professional manner, and I would never expect them to provide phony numbers. If this were exposed, they would obviously lose total credibility with the general public.

(S)CARE, on the other hand, usually hides just enough of the details in their 'information' so as to make it difficult if not impossible to actually contradict what they say. They are very careful to couch their accusations with statements like, "it may be possible", or "we cannot be absolutely sure", "it appears that" which allow them to produce numbers which will frighten the public but cover them legally from responsibility if they are shown to be inaccurate. Last year they produced a release that said that "RF radiation may be responsible for your lack of sleep" for the people on Lookout. Of course financial stress, car noise, or neighbors or many other things could also cause a lack of sleep, but they succeeded I am sure in scaring many people on Lookout into thinking they are being killed by RF radiation. Since it would be nearly impossible to disprove their statement within a reasonable time period before the 2006 transition, such accusations can be very effective and difficult to dispute.

(S)CARE is extremely knowledgeable and clever in their tactics, which in my mind, is far more "evil" (may be too strong of a word, but nothing else comes to mind at the moment) than anything the LCG does. Their tactics are generally to create fear without accepting any responsibility. Of course, they have a very strong financial motivation to get the towers off of Lookout. which, in their mind, apparently justifies their tactics. I believe all the LCG needs to do is be honest and accurate and open with their studies and they should win their case with the public. I would hope that the Jeffco commissioners have enough unbiased professional consultants to see which side being accurate and honest.

I'm up here in south Longmont and honestly don't expect to be able to receive decent (if any) HD signals from the stations in Denver. I've just installed a front projector which would allow me to view HDTV, although not in it's full glory.

Without going to a lot (or any) additional expense, Is there any way to tell if I would be able to receive any decent signals?

I live in the Gunbarrel area of north Boulder just off the Diagonal on the south facing side near the top of the hill on Lookout Road, and get KCNC, KRMA at about 75% on a UM and Zenith OTA STB (my estimate, the receivers do not have a reference scale, but the Zenith shows a graduated scale with about 50% or higher for a useable signal) , and easily get KDVR from Lookout without re-pointing. I am using a 8 foot Radio Shack UHF only antenna with a single low loss cable running directly to the receivers (i.e. no splitters, I manually change the connector to swap receivers). I seem to be on the ragged edge in this direction. I would think you 'might' have a shot if you are indeed on the south end of Longmont by the Diagonal, live on high ground with respect to the area around you and use a large UHF outdoor antenna. You are definitely going to be 'on the edge' so if will be very difficult to know what you can expect. You will have no shot at KMGH, they are only visible for a few miles near their station, and KUSA has not bothered to show HD. Sorry not to be much more help.

Hi David,
I'm due west of the Loveland city limits by a couple of miles, which gives me a hundred feet or so elevation advantage. I get a solid 80 on my Dish 6000 for KCNC-DT, and 76-80 on KRMA-DT using a ChannelMaster 4228 8-bay bowtie on my roof pointed at downtown Denver. KDVR-DT comes in strong too.

It sounds like David will have a decent shot at getting reception if he is located on reasonably high ground. I am on a hill, but have no shot at line of site with Denver, Davidson Mesa is in the way, but since I am up high there is enough signal curving over the ridge to get it to work.

David, if you already have an stb with an OTA receiver, you might first try a UHF only antenna from Radio Shack. You can return it and get your money back if you don't get anything. It is probably worth a try. You can mount the antenna on a deck or lay it in a tree outdoors for a temporary trial to see if you get any signal. Many receivers will show the signal level even if you can't get a picture, so you could at least see if you are in the 'ballpark'. If you are just a tad short in signal strength, there are some special high gain antennas etc. you can buy to get that last little bit. Run a cable in a door just to see if you get a signal. If you do, you can worry about hiding the cable, getting it through walls and hard mounting the antenna later. If you don't see anything you won't have wasted much effort. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained!"

Thanks JM and Malcom for you responses.
Geez, you can never find an altimeter when you need one :) I know I'm driving uphill when I head towards Gunbarrel (95th st) so I am concerned I don't have the altitude. I definately don't have line of sight to Denver and while I can see the flatirons from my deck off my 2nd floor bedroom, I'm not sure I can see down to where the towers are. I've got a great view of Longs Peak though maybe they could put a repeater tower there :)

I don't have an stb/ota receiver, I wonder if I could "borrow" one from Radio Shack :).

Originally posted by David James

Geez, you can never find an altimeter when you need one :) I know I'm driving uphill when I head towards Gunbarrel (95th st) so I am concerned I don't have the altitude. I definately don't have line of sight to Denver and while I can see the flatirons from my deck off my 2nd floor bedroom, I'm not sure I can see down to where the towers are. I've got a great view of Longs Peak though maybe they could put a repeater tower there :)

I don't have an stb/ota receiver, I wonder if I could "borrow" one from Radio Shack :).

Actually, the waves will "fringe" or bend over a hill to a certain degree, so if you are not 'right up against the backside' you do not have to have line of sight (although it helps). As for borrowing an stb, someone else may comment on this, but I think if you buy one from CCity or BBuy, as long as they have a 30 day return policy you can try it and if you don't get anything, take it back within the time. Others may want to comment on that, but I think others have done that. Just be sure you have the policy for returns IN WRITING, so you don't get stuck.

Is this topic going to be moved to the new forum - "Local HDTV Info and Reception" ?? Just wondering out loud and giving everyone a heads up in case it disappears one day ;)

Was just denied by the Jeffco Board of County Commissioners. It was a 3 - 0 vote. The reasons for denial were lack of access, lack of compatibility (specifically with NIST) and to a lesser degree, visual impacts.

-Wabisabi

Yea! Eldoroado is done, now on to Lookout!

thanks for the update wabisabi

A reminder for all, tonight at 7PM on PBS (KRMA) are the next two parts for "The Shape Of Life".

http://www.pbs.org/whatson/schedulex/description.html?nola_root=SHAL&date=2002-04-9

If these are half as good as last week they will be special.




Lookout!
:D

Thanks Wabisabi.
I guess that's what I expected (not necessarily the 3-0 vote but the rejection). IMO this was the right decision. I think the JeffCo Commissioners will make the right decision on Lookout when all is said and done - here's hoping at least.....

The reasons for denial were lack of access, lack of compatibility (specifically with NIST) and to a lesser degree, visual impacts.

So that leaves Lookout Mtn, Morrison, and Squaw.

If these were critical factors for denial, then in comparison:

1. Lookout - convenient access (+). very compatible (+), and existing visual impact will be lessened (+).

2. Squaw - access less convenient (-), less compatible (-), and no significant visual impact (+).

3. Morrison - convenient access (+), somewhat compatible (even), and existing impact would be worse (-).

Based on these factors for denying El Dorado. it appears that Lookout Mtn. is the better location. Of course, these will not be the only criteria considered in evaluating the LCG and BCD proposals.

Any thoughts on how we want to present ourselves in terms of showing unity at the formal community meeting at the Taj Mahal on 4/16/02?

I believe everyone should voice their opinion as a sign of force, but perhaps we should ask some of the more prominent forum members that have actively followed and supported the transition to OTA HDTV in Denver to make a statement. Then we could individually voice our support of key messages prepared by the statement.

I also expect that we will have the opportunity to debate some of the arguments that the CARE folks make. although we need to be careful 1) not to be at least respectful of their sentiments even if we do not agree with them (no personal attacks), and 2) not to discuss an issue that we do not have substantiating facts.

Should we start taking a census of who can attend? Count me in.

Front page headline in the Boulder Daily Camera today!

http://www.thedailycamera.com/


After today, the article can be found at:

http://www.thedailycamera.com/news/eldorado/10atowr.html

The Denver Post has a small article on the "Denver and the West" section front page at the very bottom.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E517392,00.html


Rocky Mountain News article at:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1078833,00.html

Last night when I went to watch NYPD Blue on KMGH-DT channel 17, I had very low reception. It was between 49 and 54%, the lowest I have ever had.

There was a lot of pixilization and dropping of the signal. I had to switch to the NTSC signal to watch the show.

Is now up.

Lake Cedar Group's web site (http://www.lakecedargroup.com/)

It seems to have quite a bit of information, the same as was presented at the open houses.

-Wabisabi

Hot -

I didn't have any problems with KMGH last night watching Darma & Greg and Spin City, but when I turned it back to watch The Court, the KMGH folks either didn't get it recorded in HD, or forgot to "flip the switch". Very annoying having to watch the final episode in SD. Oh well...

I dont believe The Court was in HD anywhere from the sound of it. A "last minute" episode change was the reason given.

Oh, and anybody see this super tower proposal for NYC at the WTC site:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04062002/news/regionalnews/13893.htm

It's been over a week and not a peep from Ken Smith or anyone concerning the meeting with the Mt. Morrison and LCG people. I can only assume it's not going to happen.

This is sad if true because it indicates to me that those involved don't have a clear idea of how the two proposals are compatible with getting all stations on the air with high-power DTV.

John in Jeffco

I got a message today from KMGH - they are scheduled to do the equipment upgrade necessary to pass 5.1 audio in August. So, hopefully in time for next season, we'll (the current 12 of us :) ) be watching ABC in DD 5.1 sound.

Originally posted by markdl
I got a message today from KMGH - they are scheduled to do the equipment upgrade necessary to pass 5.1 audio in August. So, hopefully in time for next season, we'll (the current 12 of us :) ) be watching ABC in DD 5.1 sound. Go ahead - rub it in :)

KMGH has a Digital Signal???? I had no idea!!!
:D :D :D :D

Well, I am back in town for a few days. Does anyone know if KCNC plans to pass through the Masters Thurs and Friday CBS coverage in HD on 35? I know channel 4 has regular programming listed, but CBS is providing the HD feeds, so...........hoping that 35 doesn't disappoint.

Jeff

:( :mad:

I just got a call back from Wendy in the KCNC programming department. No HD coverage of the Masters for us today and tomorrow. Something about all the people that have HD not being able to watch KCNC's normal programming on 35, and upsetting syndicators, and local ads not running...
Oh well...grrr...

Something about all the people that have HD not being able to watch KCNC's normal programming on 35, and upsetting syndicators, and local ads not running... That makes no sense at all?

Viewers can watch normal programming on good 'ol Chan. 4, It's in SD anyway. And local advertisers upset? You can't run a local ad (produced in HD, I know, I'm ready to shoot them, but no place to show them) There's maybe .001 of the low-power-receiving viewing public watching DT35 anyway.

Anyone wanna' bet how many viewers with HD sets would prefer to watch The Peoples Court or Oprah in SD over The Masters?

Come on KCNC, show & promote great HD when you can!

Wow, thats unbelieveable. Shame on them!!

If all affiliates felt this way why would CBS be putting up an HD feed to begin with. Especially aggrevating because this is an O&O affiliate.

That's just incredible. Just when you start to think they are on our side. Shame on KCNC or whomever called that shot. Dan is right, why would CBS even put on the national feed to begin with. Besides, according to 'best estimates' there are only a hundred of us watching the KCNC DTV channel anyway. If we all get together and promise to boycott all of the advertisers on the SD channel who obviously are responsible for this, would that groundswell change their minds???? It makes me wonder what they will do on Sat. and Sun. since the HD side so I have heard will not have commercials. Will they drop the HD coverage on the weekend too with the same justification.

Talk about double standard! According to the locals there aren't enough viewers to justify full power local DTV yet there are so many of us they can't afford to lose the advertiser base. I will be forever in awe of the logic used in this decision. Oh yeh, and what a crock!

The only reason I am not more PO'd is that I would be in my office at work during the telecasts anyway.

Why they couldn't just use subchannels if they insist on the regular coverage on 35 or simply leave the NTSC on 4 and use 35 for the HDTV feed for the next two days.?!?

Amazingly stupid use or rather non use of resources.


AAAAHHHH!!!!

Jeff

I sent an email to Bob Ross asking him if anyone in the home office could put some pressure on KCNC to get this to happen. Probably do no good, but you never know I guess.

Heres another clue for them. The would be viewers of 35 for the Masters wont be watching 35 (or 4) in that time slot regardless, if there's no Masters. And does it dawn on them that a household that would be tuned to 35 for teh golf might also be watching 4 on another set in the house anyway if somebody in the home actually wanted to see the local programming?

If they want to start playing these cockamanie games maybe I'll just quit watching 35 (4) altogether again. And just go back to watching CBS HD (and otherwise) from N.Y. on Dish.

It doesnt really make a hell of alot of difference to me, it's only television. But there are right ways and wrong ways of doing things.

Or, maybe she was mistaken and they will be passing it through. We shall see.

Dan,

I, for one, hope she is wrong and I will be home at 2:00 to see for myself. I will report back then if no show is on!

Jeff

Yeah I'm at home too Jeff, at least til 2:30 or so, then I have to step out for a bit.

Actually I have intrigue on several fronts. Not just 35 but also Evu. Bob Hess in the Boston thread said they're definitely passing the HD through, but gotta make sure someone is on the ball at Evu to show it.

Then the CBS HD feed on Dish from N.Y. which you'd also believe has to be showing it, happens to be listing local programming on Dish's EPG.

"HDTV... it's not just Pretty Pictures, it's an Adventure!" http://www.mjcollection.net/forum/images/smilies/clapclap.gif

What did you find, Dan? Any HD Masters anywhere? (fingers crossed!!)

well, it;s a soap. What unbelievably innovative programming for the Denver area.

Jeff

The Masters is being broadcast on KCBS (Los Angeles) right now - channel 9454 on Dish (off of 148). Don't know about WCBS out of New York. I'll be home tomorrow watching KCBS, and definitely NOT KCNC!

I just sent them a nasty gram on there web site.

This is totally unacceptable.

Does anyone have the e-mail address of the guy we meet at KCNC during the tour. He said that he wanted to here any feedback that we had for them. I think this is something that needs to be brought to his attention.

Later
Joe

Unbelieveable. I'm only getting it on one of the 3 sources I mentioned above. But I wont say which one because it would be "un-american" if you get my drift.

But that one will make mknoebel happy. :)

Originally posted by joej

Does anyone have the e-mail address of the guy we meet at KCNC during the tour. He said that he wanted to here any feedback that we had for them. I think this is something that needs to be brought to his attention.

Later
Joe

Joe
David Layne is the station engineer. That means he most likely does not have any part in this programming decision. His email is:
Email: dlayne@cbs.com

but I would caution you not to let him have it, since it probably was not his call. I would suggest you write him a letter and ask him to forward it to the programming office and station manager.

Dan
It certainly is ironic that people north of the border have better access to American HDTV than the American's do.

Ok, sometime in the last few minutes KCNC switched to the HD feed. Better late than never.... I guess.

Originally posted by DP1

But that one will make mknoebel happy. :)

Yup!

:D

Obviously they are reading the forum!
:D :D :D :D
Thanks KCNC, now if only I was at home to watch it.
:rolleyes:

I got home about 3:45 and started watching on KCBS. At 4 I switched over to KCNC, and there it was! I never heard back from Bob Ross - wonder if the decision to show it on KCNC was because of us, or because CBS corporate got involved. Regardless, it looked great, except for some minor pixellation from time to time. I'm taking tomorrow off, so I'll get to watch the whole thing! Woohoo!

To steal a line ( paraphrased ) from John Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda, I apologize most sincerely and without reservations to KCNC. I withdraw and regret any and all things I said, wrote and thought about their personnel today and at any time in the past.

Thank you KCNC for showing us the Masters on 35 in HD! I, too switched over around 4:00 and watched the rest, including the bonus coverage until 5:30 or so. Thank you again KCNC.

Jeff

Very cool KCNC, very cool.
Thanks for listening and responding so quickly.

Bummer, I ended up missing it. I checked around 3:00 and it wasn't on. Got mad and when out and turned on the sprinkler system. I even worked from home so I could watch it yesterday.

Won't get to see it today, I came into the office. Now I am really bummed.

Later
Joe

Just a reminder as all of you plan for next week that the 16th is the day of the meeting at Jeffco on the Lookout Towers. As you have friends come over this weekend to see the Master's, don't be shy about prodding them to come on Tuesday to support the cause as well. "The more the merrier."

The program Spirit of Colorado "Wild & Crazy" will be fed in HD on Saturday, April 13 at 19:30(MT) on KRMA-DT 18.

This will be coming from tape LOR-606.

-John

Thanks for the heads up, John.

I heard a short interview on KBCO this morning with the producer(?) of "Wild & Crazy", talking about a segment on the Kinetics race. I wondered if it would be in HD. Should be interesting.

There was no audio at all on KMGH earlier tonight...I made the phone call to them, and after going through the news department, talked to the engineering department, and voila! audio. Apparently they had forgotton to "flip the audio switch" so to speak.

Is anyone picking up a signal from KDVR (ch 32) tonight? I can't get even a blip from them, when usually I get signal in the 70's by adjusting my antenna.

I just checked KDVR - nothing here.

-Mike

I've sent emails to all of the local stations asking when HD would be available here and the only response that I got from the CBS station was some clown telling me that they filed for an extension with the FCC to postpone sending out a digital signal. I've checked WWW.TITANTV.COM and still can't get an answer!!! Frustrating to say the least!! Does anyone know, or even heard a rumor about HD coming to our neck of the woods?

:mad:

KDVR was also off yesterday afternoon. I tried to show someone over to watch the Master's what Fox SD DTV looked like in comparison to CBS HD, and got a black screen. I never tried again after yesterday afternoon, but they may have been down all weekend. Guess that shows how many folks are watching their DTV. It does prove that when you have 'actual HD' content such as CBS, people will watch your channel. Too bad Rupert doesn't know that.

I called KDVR last night about 7:30 after posting here and tried to talk to their engineering dept. Funny thing, though, the news dept guy I talked to said that there wasn't anyone working in the engineering dept. last night. What, they don't work Sunday nights? They have everything so automated, that there doesn't need to be anyone there watching it?

Also didn't get to watch Alias in HD...the KMGH guys told me that ABC neglected to send the audio signal with the video during the feed, so they had to send the SD upconvert.

Who's going to be at the meeting tomorrow night? At this point, I'm planning on attending.

What time is the meeting 6 or 7 ?

Project Name: Lake Cedar Group Consolidation Proposal
Address of Project: 21119 Cedar Lake Road
Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2002
Meeting Time: 7PM -9PM MDT
Meeting Place:Jefferson County Courthouse (aka Taj Mahal)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;100 Jefferson County Parkway
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Golden, CO 80419


I'll be there.

I am going to try my best to be there, however, at work I have an all day oral presentation to the customer for a new proposal that I must attend, and they often spill into the evening. Since this is the job I use to pay for all those 'toys' I have at home, it will have to take precedence if it runs late. I sure hope our turnout approaches the level of the last two get togethers at KRMA and KCNC.

Got it...Thanx Ron.....

Does anyone know if you can receive HDTV in Castle Rock from Denver, Colorado Springs, or Pueblo broadcasts?

Thanks!

HD

Hello Haylee's Dad, and welcome aboard!

First of all, there are no digital broadcasts coming from the Springs or Pueblo yet. And I haven't heard any updates in a long time from the status of the CoSpgs stations.

As for Denver signals, it depends on where you live. If you live high on a hill with a reasonably unobstructed view of Denver, and a really large antenna, you *might* be able to pick up KRMA and KCNC. Almost certainly you could get KDVR, but as you know if you've done any reading at all, Fox isn't broadcasting anything in HD. If you're behind a hill, or down in a valley, I'd say your chances are pretty much nil. Good reason for you to join us at the open house meeting tomorrow night at the Jeffco county building to argue for the tower on Lookout. That's probably your only hope at this point. Sorry to be a downer...

Does anyone know if you can receive HDTV in Castle Rock from Denver, Colorado Springs, or Pueblo broadcasts?

Thanks!

HD

Originally posted by Haylee's Dad
Does anyone know if you can receive HDTV in Castle Rock from Denver, Colorado Springs, or Pueblo broadcasts?

Thanks!

HD I'd have to agree with Mark on this.

I'll be (finally) getting back into town tomorrow but will be unable to attend the meeting. Hope all goes smoothly and that the LCG will be able to submit their proposal without much delay.

I am still showing a blank screen on KDVR-32 tonight. Anyone else? I didn't think to call them today, I "assumed" they would fix the problem when the engineers came in on Monday.

:mad:

I just got off the line with KDVR engineering. Apparently their upconverter died over the weekend, so they've been black since Sunday. They are working on getting the equipment fixed/replaced, and hope to be broadcasting again by this afternoon or evening.

Re: tonight's meeting. I am somewhat happy to report that I have a business dinner and can't make the meeting.

I do want HD here, but it still seems that the powers-that-be, from the county to the LCG to the CARE folks all seem to be more interested in the process than the outcome.

No meeting with the Morrision/Lookout proposal people? Big surprise. I still think we are being used in someone else's games!

Were it not for this dinner meeting, I'd likely be there, but I wouldn't feel very good about it.

I for one hope that KDVR gets their equipment fixed today. While I'm EXTREMELY disappointed that corporate Fox has snubbed HDTV, I do enjoy watching 24 in 16x9 480p -- it's better than 4x3 480i.

I think the more of us that show up tonight, the better. We know (s)CARE's going to have a contingent there -- it's important that the other (rational?) side makes an appearance as well.

That said, I can't make it tonight. By the time I leave downtown (6ish), drop off the wife and kid at home (Brighton) and make it out to JeffCo, the meeting would be over.

(edited to fix a typo)

Just got back from the LCG meeting at the Taj. Well, it was as you would expect, Very one-sided with the 'TRUST' issue being forefront.

Some of the items brought up were...
Punishment for non-complience of agreement - No real answer, just the county will handle it.

Since Chnl. 9 is part of the group, will they take down the Radar tower as a 'good-will' token - No answer.

And that Chanl 6 will withdraw the Mt. Morrison app with this one being submitted - Not sure even i believe that one!

Most seemed unhappy that their questions weren't answered. I thought most were and answered pretty well. But NIMBY's will never be happy.

Marv Rockford (4's GM) was there. He need to work on his body language. He stood there with his arms crossed looking very affrontational. And then someone asked about regulation of RF levels and he said the FCC does that. Whoa! The place went nuts!

I asked how soon once the application is approved will the tower be operational and they said about a year. Man, did i get some real nasty looks. Screw-em! I want my M, uh, HDTV! They also said the app might go in to the county in about a month.

I didn't take notes, but I'm sure wabisabi will give us a
great post as usual.

Ron and John also took notes tonight - I was sitting between them. Actually, this meeting was worse than I thought it might be, at least worse than I hoped it would be. There were probably 50 or 60 different questions asked, or variations of questions, with about half of them answered, and the other half being taken back to the LCG. Of course, of the 30 answers, none of them were accepted.

The hot topics that were raised (at least to me) were channel 9's radar tower on lookout, the complete lack of trust that these people have for anything anyone tells them, thee fcc's complete lack of enforcement for rf level violations, KRMA's stance on being part of both applications, and financial disclosure of the stations involved, including the "financial economic analysis that the stations must have gone through to choose Lookout over the other sites" (not that there ever was one of those - confirmed by Mr. Rockford). The LCG guys (Pete and Fred) and Marv Rockford were blatantly called liars to their faces - i.e. "I don't believe what you just told me"...

There will be no convincing these people, no matter what we come up with. The question really is will we be able to convince the planning commission, and then the county commissioners that this plan is in the public interest. They are hearing intensely loud shouting and swearing up and down from the other side - I had no idea how loud until tonight. Can we be as loud to them from the other side? If we want HDTV in this city, we have to be...otherwise this isn't going to happen. I'm starting my active recruitment process tomorrow of the people that I know that live in Jeffco. I hope that everyone else on here does the same, otherwise we won't make enough noise to be heard.

Thanks to Ernie, John, Ron, and Pookers (sorry - don't remember your real name) that came out tonight. If others of you were there that I didn't see, I apologize for not including you.

They are hearing intensely loud shouting and swearing up and down from the other side - I had no idea how loud until tonight. Can we be as loud to them from the other side?

What is funny is that I thought that tonight's meeting was calm compared to the previous LCG meetings.

I agree that the LCG did a pretty good job overall, and that trust is a huge issue for the community.

I think that the LCG "addressed" most of the issues presented, but "answered" very few. However, that is the point of the community meeting.

-Wabisabi

One more thing...

They kinda' left it up in the air about another (probably last) public meeting before the App. submittle. Thinking about it on the way home, we really need to be there with 'positive' questions instead of all the 'What if this' and 'What if you don't do that' crap.

We need ask questions like...
- Please tell us the benefits to the community of DTV over analog.
- Why is OTA DTV different from Digital Cable/Satellite
- Again, why is important to keep the airwaves FREE?
- And what about the visual improvement with the reduction of towers.
- Can you show us again the reduction of RF levels with the new tower over the old technology etc.

If we can come up with some more of those questions maybe we can show the other side a bit better.

Made it to the meeting tonight. Deb Carney and a lot of angry people were there. It actually didn't go all that badly for the LCG. The KRMA issue of the dual applications came up (surprise) and was not answered to anyone's satisfaction. A lot of questions were raised about enforcement of the RF regulations and how the people could trust them to be enforced. The real "HOT" button is the channel 9 doppler radar on Lookout, which according to several questioners, is operating 'illegally. The questions asked if that would be on the new tower and if it is, would that make them unable to have it removed. A lot of the standard questions about the radiation levels, the time tables, etc. Many of the questions were left unanswered. They also asked a lot about the financial arrangements of the LCG and its members. Pete promised to have the answers posted on the LCG website. Probably the most commonly expressed concept was the lack of trust the citizens on Lookout have for the stations. Over and over again, people from the audience said they did not have any reason to believe anything they were being told and that they felt they have been lied to many times by the stations. I am not sure ANY answer the LCG could give them to the questions would be acceptable. There were many requests for another meeting which would be devoted to simply answering the questions raised tonight. I will try to fill in more tomorrow. I did take some notes and will try to put more info on here tomorrow if I have time, but my schedule is very full. Sorry for the short post, but had to help my son with homework when I got home and am now very tired. I had a LONG day today and have a couple more coming up this week.

I believe the trust questions and understand (S)CARE concerns in this matter. It doesn't surprise me that this was raised again last night. I'd hoped that the proposed legal agreement between the LCG and JeffCo would assuage those concerns but it sounds like this is still going to be an uphill battle. Our local broadcasters haven't been good neighbors in the past and this will continue to haunt them until they demonstrate otherwise.

Perhaps the LCG will up the stakes and propose and help finance a full time "compliance inspector" / Liaison officer that works for (and reports to) JeffCo. This person could serve as a point of contact between citizens, the county, and the stations. If he/she reported to the Jefferson County officials and is independent of the LCG stations this would help mitigate trust concerns. This could perhaps start out as a 5 year position with a decison to eliminate or continue the position sometime during the last year.

I remember comments about the channel 9 Doppler radar (this also plays into the trust and confidence concerns and not being a good neighbor). I believe the manner in which Ch9 put up this antenna was "less than forthright" and is an example of previous acts that serve to alienate the broadcasters from their Lookout neighbors. I doubt Ch 9 will be willing to remove this antenna as a gesture of good faith but doing so would probably be a good idea.

No surprise on the KRMA dual app front. I still don't see this as being beneficial to the LCG application and hope that KRMA will withdraw this application and resubmit only if the LCG app is rejected. It's time to circle the wagons and throw full support and energy behind the LCG Lookout application - not defending 2 submittals. What say you KRMA?

No surprise on the KRMA dual app front. I still don't see this as being beneficial to the LCG application and hope that KRMA will withdraw this application and resubmit only if the LCG app is rejected. It's time to circle the wagons and throw full support and energy behind the LCG Lookout application - not defending 2 submittals. I can't remember Fred saying this, but i do remember the other guy (the tall guy) say that Chl. 6 would withdraw their App before the LCG App was submitted? Did i hear him wrong?

I don't remember that being explicitely stated. What I heard was that KRMA will be part of this application, and that their other application "will be resolved" before the LCG application is submitted.

There were a few very obnoxious, outspoken people at the meeting last night, but now that I've calmed down a little about it, I don't think that everyone in the room on their side was as hostile as I originally thought. Talking to some of them after the meeting, there were some people that sounded positive about the app because of the reduction of the number of towers. A lot of them were concerned that once the 4 existing towers come down that the stations would build new towers on those sites. They went as far as demanding the LCG to deed the land to the public trust or to Jeffco Open Space.

I think we have a battle ahead of us, but I don't think that it's unwinnable.

Originally posted by markdl


I think we have a battle ahead of us, but I don't think that it's unwinnable.

Wow! I just had a bigtime Deja Vu moment. I coulda swore somebody said that back in '99! ;)

Well, I've only been a part of this (and you guys) now for 5 months. I'm still naive... :D

There were 33 issues/questions that the community brought up that were written down on paper flip-charts and taped on the side wall. The LCG attempted to group them into categories and respond to them by category and also ensure they answered the specific questions. Although I heard comments later like "... we asked allot of very specific questions and did not get one specific answer!", I thought the LCG did a pretty good job of directly answering many of the concerns, admitting that they didn't have some answers yet and would go back and get the answers. I noticed very little 'soft shoe' going on (and don't really know why there needs to be any).

These are the issues that LCG tabled and said they would return to answer the community before the app is submitted:
What will happen to RF levels during the overlap of constructing/testing the new tower while the old analog towers are still operating?
We need a clarification of KRMA's position regarding their inclusion in 2 applications.
You said there are spots south of the tower where RF levels will go up. Exactly where will the RF levels go up and by how much?
Give us a definition of your analysis procedures for 'community impact' for Lookout and the other tower sites you reviewed
Full disclosure (including financial) of the LCG legal entity. Is it still a Limited Liability Corporation (L.L.C.)?
Are the 230kV high tension lines within the tower fall radius?
I thought Peter McNally answered this last item as "No", but he did say that was the short answer. I presume LCG will respond with a long answer in the upcoming response meeting. Toward the end, many were concerned that the method the LCG uses to respond to the outstanding questions was left somewhat nebulous. Some wanted face-to-face, some wanted another JCC formal meeting. Fred's answer that the LCG will respond in any format that community wanted satisfied no one. There were some other issues (of the 33) that they didn't get to due to time or IMO that were not answered at all. The LCG should add these to the above list. I'll forward these to Peter and Fred in case their note taker dismissed them:
The status of the 'illegal' channel 9 radar in the application
Will the LCG adhere to any RF standards if JeffCO were to enact any more stringent than FCC. (Of course this is not even being considered by JeffCo and probably need not be answered)
Although the tower fall radius does not include any residences, what about the guy cable whip radius?
Why hasn't the LCG replaced the existing analog antennas with directional ones yet? (Probably doesn't need to be answered; approve the application and it will happen!)
How much blasting will occur for the new building (probably doesn't need answering/already answered with "Don't know; as much as necessary")
The process for addressing interference needs to be enumerated, what form of remedies can be expected.
What is LCG plan B? Will lawsuit against JeffCo and/or FCC preemption petition resume if application is denied?
The LCG should answer these as concretely as possible (hey, flood them with details, if that's what they want!). The LCG should do their homework and respond timely and completely and in all methods mentioned (meet face-to-face with the individuals they committed to and with a last community meeting). Don't use only the website!

My impressions of the meeting...

Ernie, when you asked that question about timing, I thought that (s)care was resigning itself to the attitude that this proposal would be approved. I did sense some of that attitude. The majority of the (s)care crowd seemed to be trying to dig out information that they can hang their hat on to solidly oppose this and are afraid that the tower reduction and RF reduction is so appealing that it may be approved (given the Eldorado result). My interpretation of this may be wrong, but my impression is that the tower reduction/RF reduction concept may split the (s)care solidarity.

There is definitely a camp that is Squaw or bust (based on the KYGO comment). Then there is a camp which wants to use (s)care tactics, insinuation, calling the presenters liars, ranting and raving about lack of trust etc. headed up by their legal advocate (who I ended up sitting next to). Another set of residents provided good, thoughtful questions (including their technical guy). Their legal advocate seemed rather agitated and her comments/questions were so far out there that they basically were not worthwhile answering (insinuation that a deal might be already cut and setting up a fund for who knows what medical issues that may occur from reduced RF) etc.

The channel 9 radar tower is being set up to be the deal-killer and ultimately the sacrificial lamb if this is to be approved.

It appeared to me that this will not matter to the squaw camp, however, and their opposition will be vocal and consistent.

There were a very few (s)care members who were loud and hostile (another lawyer in the first row and guy in the back row), but it wasn't bad. A lot of the (s)care members could only hang their hat on the lack of time to answer all of the questions. Not all of the questions will be answered to their satisfaction, that is for sure. The facilitation of the meeting started out well and then sort of deteriorated the last half of the meeting as (s)care took over with the mob mentality. Hopefully, some of the residents will reflect on the facts and enforcement entities of the proposal and will take a look at what will happen to Lookout this decade if this proposal is shot down. There will definitely some wrong impressions expressed by some at the meeting (statement that RF levels will go up by a factor of 10). I do believe that the RF calculations will be scrutinized, judged, and dismissed by (s)care, however, the LCG has addressed a variety of the issues raised the first time through and is in line with the Jeffco telecommunications plan document handed out on the table at the meeting. I believe this is (s)caring (s)care.

Assuming the dtv transition takes the rest of this decade,
No tower reduction this decade if the proposal is shot down.
No RF level reduction this decade if the proposal is shot down.
It did not seem that this was clearly spelled out and (s)care would not want to listen to that anyway. They definitely were there to oppose and not listen because of the "trust" issue.

I have no idea what the odds are of approval and the meeting did not change that.

Regarding channel 6, Fred did say that Channel 6 will send a letter to Jefferson County before the formal submittal of the application which will clarify their LCG position and priorities with respect to the Mt. Morrison app.

I did get a chance to thank Marv Rockford after the meeting for their channel 35 initiative.

Don

IMHO, I believe LCG1 was denied because there were some community concerns that actually had some foundation that the previous application did not concretely address and the BCC used them as denial reasons. During this LCG2 process, it seems only the foundationless community concerns are left unaddressed. Perhaps the BCC will find it harder to deny even though there are still claims of "you're killing people!" that have no basis in fact. So approve the application, lower the RF levels on Lookout, and "kill fewer people"!

"... and now, a word from our sponsers ..."
Did you see the thread about Discovery HD Theater being launched June 17th?!?!? woohoo!!

"... we now resume our scheduled programming ..."
Let's call a spade a spade ... (pls no flames on my choice of colloquialisms). (S)CARE wants ALL towers removed citing currently unfounded health issues. Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, but (too late!) they impede any changes to the status quo that is anything less than complete removal of towers. This application and (S)CARE's ultimate goal need to be delinked. Let's look at their best case scenario: (S)CARE is successfull in electing a new board more sympathetic to their ultimate goal (perhaps with (S)CARE members on the board). The study ending in 2004 shows there might be something to the linking of the RF on Lookout and health issues. Other studies are launched to validate the claims of the Lookout study. The results spur lobbyists to urge the FCC to change their RF emmissions standards. FCC finally changes them. FCC gives broadcasters period of time to comply. At the most optimistic, this would be 20 years away and it wouldn't matter if it were an old tower or a new tower (which would be 20 years old by this time anyway), a non-complying tower would come down. Couldn't someone successfully argue with (S)CARE that it is in their best health interest that those 20 years were spent with lower RF emmissions on the mtn than the status quo?

I know, the choir doesn't need to hear any more preaching ... but I just had to vent.

The majority of the (s)care crowd seemed to be trying to dig out information that they can hang their hat on to solidly oppose this and are afraid that the tower reduction and RF reduction is so appealing that it may be approved I agree, i think (s)care is really starting to run (s)cared! Like the guywire whip thing and the totally isipid questions from Deb Carney about a fund being setup now for damages after the people get sick, blah, blah, blah.

They're taken notice that this App. is being extremely well prepared. So, they are starting to look for anything they can use as ammunition against the it. Problem is... there's not too much to oppose! Lower RF levels & much better asthesics for Lookout. I think someone said it before, How do you face your kids and tell them that you turned down a way to lower RF levels in the neighborhood and wanted to keep those ugly towers there.

I find it interesting that two people can make comments that seem to be completely contradictory, yet both be correct (to an extent). As a case in point, There will definitely some wrong impressions expressed by some at the meeting (statement that RF levels will go up by a factor of 10) LCG maintains that power levels will go down, and CARE says they will go up. This could be as simple as LCG referring to "ground level radiation" and CARE referring to "total ERP of the towers". Both are correct, yet they are saying contradictory things.

According to the LCG, some areas south of the towers will have higher levels of RF. So, CARE can say (correctly) that RF levels will increase, while LCG can say (correctly) that RF levels will go down.

These are just some of the issues that the commissioners will have to deal with.

Wabisabi

Also, if they want to play semantics...
If i remember correctly (from my broadcast days)
Different channels (frequencies) for the same RF output require more power. So, with all the Denver stations going up to higher frequencies, (s)care can say (and of course confuse) that KCNC WAS at 100,000 watts for VHF Chnl. 4 and NOW they're proposing to be at 1,000,000 watts for UHF Chnl. 35 etc. (Please, correct me if i'm wrong, I'm not sure if this still applies to Digital Chnls. vs. Analog)

So, I can hear (s)care now at the Future JeffCO Approval meetings spouting BS like this to confuse the commissioners & homeowners...
See they must be Lying, because they're telling us they want to lower Levels, but they want to increase the power 10 times etc. They're LYING, WE CAN'T TRUST THEM!!!!

Well rest assured Ernie those folks will always find something. I mean, whats the alternative? "Oh wait, ok, we see what you're proposing to do, thats cool. Start digging!" We know thats never going to happen.

Welp, I'm sorry I didn't make it last night. I didn't want to post my "I'm not going" cause there were already too many others. Thank you all for the reports!

Do I have this right that there were less than (or circa) 5 of us that showed up? How many from their side?

-John

Originally posted by JohnJr
Do I have this right that there were less than (or circa) 5 of us that showed up? How many from their side?Five of us and about 30 of them. But it was their community meeting. Let's see what kind of turnout we can produce for the hearing(s)!

"Oh wait, ok, we see what you're proposing to do, thats cool. Start digging!" We know thats never going to happen. Dan, Wanna' bet that they're planning a 'suprise attack' with something like:

Uh, Commisioners, we've just discovered that you can't let them dig there...
That's the home of the Endangered, Golden, Short-sighted, Nimby-toad! ;)

John,
I think there were about 40 people there total.

Different channels (frequencies) for the same RF output require more power.

Hmmm, maybe that is where they got the magnitude (x10) from. But, as you say, RF transmitted per channel is probably approximately the same for that particular station and is doubled because of the additional digital channel. The LCG proposal also includes switching channel 20 from Mt. Morrison to Lookout. However, it will be up higher and the Jeffco Telecommunications plan says that taller is better from the standpoint of reducing ground level radiation to help mitigate the change in distance from Mt. Morrison to Lookout. There is also a reduction in transmitter site proliferation as desired by the Jeffco Telecommunications plan.

I believe the much shorter channel 6, 7, & 9 towers have the potential to be much bigger offenders when it comes to ground level radiation. There also was a comment by (s)care to that effect that the channel 6 tower had been a concern in the past.

If I lived at the Buffalo Bill museum, I would be extremely glad that those 3 short towers have a chance to be dismantled in the near future.

I do believe that the significant reductions in overall residential RF will be achieved due to the elimination of the 3 short towers and through the use of the directional lobes. It is my understanding that there is an optimum angular placement to provide a minimum amount of residential RF exposure. Could there be a tradeoff between coverage and slightly better or worse residential RF exposure? I do not think that it matters because the residential RF are projected to be much less than accepted standards in any case.

Also, what is directly south of Lookout? I get sort of turned around but I believe it is the hogback (above Heritage Square) or the Red Rocks valley between the hogback and Mt. Morrison. Hopefully, the LCG will release exact directional data to help answer that specific question from last night.

Now the wait begins. What do you think? Will we get hearings before another HD channel on DirectTV (is that June 17 real and will we need SATC which I've resisted so far) ??? I also will have to watch out for that new horny toad snipe species.


Don

KDVR is now transmitting their analog signal on 32-1. Wonder how long it will be before they get their eqpt fixed/replaced.

This article appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette today. I find it truly amazing that the news media in Denver can't seem to understand this new HD technology and yet Warren Epstein seems to hit the nail right on the head on the first try. Too bad he doesn't cover the issues here in Denver.

http://www.gazette.com/stories/0418life3.php?section=3

Amazing.
:rolleyes:

Well if you mean the part about the broadcasters dragging thier feet, yeah. Though I must say if I were in a small market like that I'd probably drag them too. Here in Denver, while once upon a time (like 3 years ago) I thought they were dragging their feet, I dont really anymore.

But as for the rest of the article, in a way it kind of plays right into certain peoples hands. That is, even if you had towers theres seemingly no cable coverage on the horizon, tuners cost hundreds of dollars, might as well wait a few years anyway til prices come down.. etc etc

In other words, the masses wont buy in anyway until the above is addressed so whats the rush to build the towers if theres time to truly sort out the concerns?

Oh, and any of you that get 17, are you finding it to be totally down today? I'm getting zero signal strength.

Originally posted by DP1
Well if you mean the part about the broadcasters dragging their feet, yeah..........

But as for the rest of the article, in a way it kind of plays right into certain peoples hands. That is, even if you had towers theres seemingly no cable coverage on the horizon, tuners cost hundreds of dollars, might as well wait a few years anyway til prices come down.. etc etc

In other words, the masses wont buy in anyway until the above is addressed so whats the rush to build the towers if theres time to truly sort out the concerns?


Exactly! Although I still am not convinced the broadcasters in Denver are 100% serious either, but at least there is movement. As for not buying a set now since there is no cable either, I must say I can't argue with that statement even though I obviously disagree. Bottom line in all of this is that there is currently very little pressure on the broadcasters to get on the air until or unless there are penalties (read $$$$) for not making the FCC schedule.

One related point from the other night which did not go over well with the (S)CARE folks had to do with the transition. One question asked if another site were found (hypothetical) what would happen to the analog towers on Lookout. The response from the LCG was that the towers would remain broadcasting as a minimum until 85% of the Denver market has DTV capable sets. You could see from the expressions on the faces of the folks that visions of all of the towers coming down on Lookout in 2006 were suddenly dashed. The LCG alluded to possibly using the towers many many more years (presumable switching them to DTV), but there were some very sharp attacks from the audience about 'other uses being forbidden', so Pete and company did not actually come out and say that. I must admit to being amused when the visions of the towers being used for many years beyond 2006 if the new one is not built sunk in.

Originally posted by DP1
...

Oh, and any of you that get 17, are you finding it to be totally down today? I'm getting zero signal strength.

I noticed this also. Got 32-1(FOX-31) back and lost 17-1,17-2. I would trade FOX for ABC since at least you get HD broadcasts every once in awhile.

Yeah, thanks dmunn, I figured as much.

Maybe the gerbil that runs the power generating wheel expired and they have another one on order. :p

Dan, and dmunn,

Rick (don't remember last name - chief engineer at KMGH) told me at the meeting Tuesday that 17 would be down for awhile this week because they had to swap out some equipment. I just hope they're back on by Sunday for Alias. Sorry I didn't post this earlier...it had slipped my mind.

Darn, my KMGH was down last night too!

Just like the night before and the night before and the night before and ..........before!

Come to think of it, it has NEVER worked at my place. Anyone know where they are getting those gerbils? We could all throw in ten bucks and offer to get them a MUCH bigger one, (you know, one that could run all the way up the stairs to the top of the Republic Building)!


:D

Got a nice call from Pete McNally yesterday thanking everyone for showing up on Wed. night to provide some friendly faces. Although we were pretty quiet since it was 'not our meeting', I hope we will have some good turnouts at the hearings when our support will really be needed.

Originally posted by markdl
Dan, and dmunn,

Rick (don't remember last name - chief engineer at KMGH) told me at the meeting Tuesday that 17 would be down for awhile this week because they had to swap out some equipment. I just hope they're back on by Sunday for Alias. Sorry I didn't post this earlier...it had slipped my mind.


Hmmm? Maybe they are getting the equipment installed to pass through the Dolby Digital 5.1. Funny, I passed the channel 7 building downtown, and saw the HD antenna. No wonder it's so hard to get their signal, that antanne is pitiful.

Grr...I'm losing my mind here this week obviously...DD 5.1 was the other thing that I asked Rick about, and he confirmed what I had heard before - that the equipment for DD 5.1 would be installed in August.

Where is it ?

Still no ABC (17-1,17-2) last night

I got KMGH last week, but still no as of last night ( Alias in SD, GRRRR! ). Hope they get repaired or reconfigured or whatever soon.

Jeff

I just got a call back from the head engineer at KMGH. He said that 17 should be back on the air now, and will be tonight and tomorrow night at least. There's work going on on the roof of the KMGH building, and they have to shut the antenna down for some of it. So, 17 will be intermittent for at least another week, but at least it'll be up tonight and tomorrow night.

Hopefully up on Saturday for Armageddon (the movie, not the event) and Sunday for Sixth Sense

FWIW, it's up again now.

Darn!! It's still down here in Boulder!
:D :D :D :D :D

Sorry, John...I suspect it's gonna be down for you for some time yet...:(

For those in Boulder, what kind of antenna are you using to get what HDTV there is? Also, where is it mounted?

Is KDVR-DT off the air again? I went to watch 24, and it's not there. I can't even punch it in manually. Anyone else?

KDVR-DT was up for me, but even with an 80% signal the signal kept breaking-up so I had to switch to SD via Dish. Not sure why I always have this problem with the KDVR-DT channel (when they are broadcasting in digital).

Steve

I live east of Longmont and pull in KDVR channel 32 pretty easilt with a RS bowtie. Until recently, I received ch 32 in 480p. Now it comes in in 480i and has no sound! What happened? Did they have an equipment failure? Thanks!

I believe KDVR had problems with the equipment used to pass 480p -- last night I was able to pull in 32-1 really strong, but is was a standard 4x3 picture just being transmitted digitally, not the 16x9 they've been broadcasting for a while now.

Speaking of issues, is it just me and my Denon receiver or is 35 almost nightly still having sound issues when passing the HD through? It seems like almost everytime I tune to it there are stretches where the audio is really tinny sounding and is hard to listen to. It often clears up but it still makes me wonder. I'm seeing (hearing) it on both of my digital tuners.

Just wondering because I really havent seen anybody reference the problem much.

I have the same problem using the RCA DTC-100 and a JVC A/V receiver. When I've been watching channel 35 and I experience the tinny sound, I shoot an e-mail off to David Layne and then when it clears up I send him another one. Don't know what kind of research they're doing into the problem, but I hear they read this thread every morning :)

It's pretty annoying, so hopefully they're close to tracking it down and eliminating the problem.

Originally posted by trunkboy
For those in Boulder, what kind of antenna are you using to get what HDTV there is? Also, where is it mounted?

Trunkboy

I am getting good quality signals (when they are on the air) of KRMA, KCNC, and KDVR (no shot at KMGH) with a Radio Shack UHF-only 8 foot antenna. Sorry I don't have the model number handy here at work, but as I recall it ran about $43 -50. I have it set up externally on the house, tied to a post on my rear deck at about the height of the house. I live in North Boulder on the high end of the Lookout Road Hill (in Heatherwood) facing south, but do NOT have a line of sight with Denver and the Republic Building. The major trick I have found, is that I only get enough signal when I use a single low loss cable from the antenna directly to my receivers (Unity Motion and Zenith). Adding any splitters of any kind kills the signal too much for the receivers to use. Hope this helps some. Use the private email (pm) feature and send me a private note if you need any more information and I will do what I can to help. Welcome to the Denver thread and the AVS forum.

DP1
I have noted the same problem on KCNC audio with both of my OTA receivers, so it is not just you. Usually, the sound clears up in 5-10 minutes, although it was particularly bad for a long time during one of the early round March Madness tournament games and lasted nearly the entire game.

Dan and dr_mal,

I've mentioned the tinny sound problem to David Layne both times that I've seen him, and everytime it happens (seems to happen just about every night I watch 35 these days) I send him an email (dlayne@cbs.com) with the time that it started, and then another one when it clears up. He told me that he does check his email on a frequent basis at night, so I'm pretty sure he is doing something to get things cleared up as soon as he finds out about the problem. Now as to why it keeps happening...David, want to jump in here and talk about it? :D

Hello:

As a Denver resident, I have been following this forum for a while and it has been helpful in getting my HDTV setup going. Last night, after being annoyed again by the KCNC tinny sound, I checked this morning and found others have the same experience. That is reassuring and it is good to know that it is not my equipment. So, I decided to join AVS and pass along my experience.

I live just south of Cherry Creek Reservoir (East side of Greenwood Village) and am getting all four DTV stations. Yes, even KMGH. I put a Channel Master Yagi 4248 (actually two piece 3023) on top of my chimney and aimed it to get the best signal for KMGH. The other three stations come in OK no matter how carefully you aim it. Interestingly, the antenna is aimed about 10 degrees to the west of the KMGH building location. The signal is very sensitive, but I do get a reading of 40 on my RCA F38310 which has a DTC 100 built in. The signal will lock on above 35 on my set, so KMGH has been reliable as well. At least when KMGH is deciding to actually broadcast. I tried a CM 7775 pre-amp but it did not help and actually caused the KMGH signal to go away. A tech at CM said it was probably being overdriven by other strong signals.

The HD picture is beautiful. Lots of WOWs from friends and neighbors. I will install the Sat C add on to my dish and hope to get Showtime HD at no cost. And if DirecTV carries the new Discovery HD, life with my HDTV will begin to really be worth the investment.

Thanks to all of you for indirectly helping me get going, especially with the OTA antenna stuff.

Good work Dennis, welcome aboard!

And thanks guys for the follow-up on KCNC.

KDVR-DT ch32-1 is showing their analog signal (same as on ch31) for about a week now.

From: Mike Howey [mhowe426@fox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:00 AM
To: Auger, Ron
Subject: KDVR-DT

Ron,

With regards to channel 32, KDVR-DT, a key component has quit working, resulting in what you are currently seeing.. Specifically, our SDI to 480p upconverter is in California being repaired.. We expect it back by the end of this week..

Thanks,
Mike Howey
VP, Engineering & Operations

Is anybody not getting any sound from ch. 32?
I have seen no mention about this except from my earlier post. Thanks!

Hey, Dennis makes 13 of us that can get KMGH! You know, this time next year we may be up to 20!

I haven't checked today, but I have been getting sound on KDVR-DT 32 -- I watch Seinfeld at 11PM every night.

The series Desert Speaks will be fed in HD on Thursdays at 15:30 (MDT) beginning 5/2/02- 7/25/02.

Each week it will be on frequency DT2A (RX-IF=1379).
It will be broadcast on KRMA-DT Channel 18.

-John

PS. 15:30... what is that, like 3:30? HDTV at 3:30 PM... nahhhh ;)

When I tune to KRMA-DT channel 18, my stb changes the channel to 80-3. Is this typical?

It just depends on which receiver you use. Some remap it to 80-3 on nights and weekends when KRMA is passing the National feed through as opposed to local programming during the weekdays.

A Dish 6000 will do it that way (switch back and forth between 18 and 80), other's like DirecTv receivers with the APG tend to always just show it as 6-1 in the guide.

Can't have this once proud thread falling all the way to page 3! :D

Is Frontier House going to be on the national PBS feed tonight from 8-10? People in the programming forum last week said that it is scheduled to be widescreen SD, and my wife really wants to watch it. Any info is appreciated.

Dialog cutting out all over the place last night during the broadcast.
Just me?????

It would seem that Frontier House will be on tonight according to the PBS page and HDTVGalaxy. But both of them list it at 9 eastern so I guess that would mean 7 pm here (and perhaps again at 10) if my math is right. :)

HD tonight? Bah Humbug! The Avs (unfortunately) are playing game seven!

BTW, I got a short call from Pete McNally about a week ago. He said that the LCG is hoping to set up one more meeting with Lookout folks to provide answers to the questions that were generated, and in some cases not answered, at the last meeting in Jeffco. He said he would let us know the details if it happens. I haven't heard back from him since then.

Although I think it is good that the LCG is finally trying to create some dialog with the residents up there, but on the down side, we all know this means the application will not be submitted until this process if finished. The clock doesn't even start ticking until the application is submitted.

We were watching KCNC last night, TV movie, Living with the Dead. Twice the sound went tinny forcing us to switch to SD off the satellite. Bummer. In addition to the sound being tinny, it would occasionally cut out. Is there a person at KCNC to email complaints to? Picture remains fine when this is happening. Too bad I can't sync the SD sound with the HD picture... the satellite delay would give one a headache!

I twice checked ABC when Sixth Sense was on and the sound was OK.

Hello Dennis - email David Layne, chief engineer at KCNC at dlayne@cbs.com ... he has asked us to bombard him with mail whenever the audio problem happens. Now if they could just figure out what's causing it...

I dont get that. For one thing it happens every night it seems. And for another do they not have an end user type STB of their own connected to see and hear what we see and hear?

Hell, I've got a spare tuner, DD receiver and speakers they can borrow I suppose if not.