Just received this...
I received the same message from Mark's office this afternoon as well.


Just finished reading the article in the Canyon Courier posted by Lawood. Great article just seething with anger of the sudden and final way this was handled. Apparently there are some very upset people in the Golden area :D .

Unless they are covering their bets, they seem to agree that there is little if anything they can do now, even though according to the article, "Jeffco board Chairman Kevin McCasky said Monday that the commission had not been informed previously about the federal legislation. He said the county was about to schedule a hearing on the case."

What a shame, they were just about 'to schedule a hearing on the case'. No doubt the meeting was to 'approve' the plan. Actually, since the next meeting was apparently just to approve the plan, it makes you wonder why anyone in Jeffco or Golden even care about the Congressional intervention. It obviously just confirms what they were doing anyway.
:rolleyes:

“It’s the radiation,” she explained. “We have three times higher-than-normal incidents of brain tumors near the (existing analog) towers. The signal is so overwhelming from these towers … that lots of our electric equipment malfunctions.”

So, why did you buy a house up there and continue to live there to this day if you truly feel it is dangerous? Hmmm? BTW, this claim has been proven false by experts on a number of occaissions Deb. You simply are lying. What about the LCG offer to continuously monitor RF levels via an accredited inspector at no cost to you? What about the local Universities study that showed incidents of cancer on Lookout are below expected rates? Facts suck don't they Debbie.

“We feel betrayed. We thought we had certain rights in this country. "

As in the right to free OTA TV?
As in the right to not have our land taken or condemned by unethical local governments under the guise of eminent domain? Especially when it is entirely outside of a city's borders?
As in the right to have hearings in a timely manner overseen by unbiased Judges and council-persons that are not bought and paid for by your organizations?
As in....do you really want me to go on, I can and it would be quite a list after all of your and (s)Cares 'shenanigans'.

“It was sent back … 19 months ago,” Rockford said. “The Jeffco commissioners have not even scheduled a hearing or a vote...."Jeffco board Chairman Kevin McCasky said Monday that the county was about to schedule a hearing on the case."

What about the last 19 frickin' months you bozo? "About to"? As in 'someday, eventually, possibly when we get around to it, ...I'm thinking 2014 or so'?

There is only one thing that can be said about the Federal decision, that is it was the correct one and should have been made some years ago.

Deb, I cordially invite you to *#^$%@#(*& my $&*($!

Deb, I cordially invite you to *#^$%@#(*& my $&*($!
WooHoo Tim, You go girl!

Golden officials ... said they had no idea the bill even existed until it was already approved by Congress. ... Said Golden City Manager Mike Bestor. “We found out about it through a source, at the risk of his job.”

Hmmmm. Someone in Congress (presumably) is at risk of losing his job because he reported the existance of a bill that had already been passed? :rolleyes:

What do you folks have against Blu-Ray?
I am in the pro Blu-Ray for the main reason of 20% MORE storage capacity.
Also, I don't like how Micro$oft has weasled their way into HD-DVD standards.


Back on Target ... I have sent e-mails thanking the congressional folks.

# Matt
This is way off-topic, but since you asked (plenty of room for debate in the HD-DVD/BRD forums here)

* Sony-invented proprietary formats don't have a good history (see Beta, MiniDisc, MemoryStick [sure, it's still around, but the industry uses CF or SD - no need for another format], UMD)
* Standards are good. Sony helped create the CD common format, it worked. Sony helped the DVD forum came up with DVD, it took. The DVD forum comes up with HD-DVD and Sony feels the need to create another format instead of sticking with the industry group (see point #1)
* In the early days, BRD was more fragile, required an exterior case, etc. These reasons are why the DVD forum went with HD-DVD. Sony should've worked with the DVD forum at that point to improve HD-DVD, not keep working on BRD.
* Sony corporate's complete and utter disregard for consumers (see Proprietary formats, rootkits on music CDs, etc) leaves me with little reason to trust them.
* HD-DVD hardware is ~$500 compared to ~$1000 for BRD.

As to the storage capacity - sure 50GB > 30GB. But with the initial BRD releases done in MPEG4 (vs HD-DVD's VC1 [which BRD also supports]), they needed the extra space. Also, since most studios are supporting BRD and HD-DVD, it makes sense for them to create one 30GB VC1 master of their films and release it on BRD and HD-DVD, so there's very little practical benefit.

These are my reasons; the BRD camp probably has their own reasons. After the rootkit fiasco, I decided I was done with Sony. I should go burn my MiniDisc player in effigy ;)

I had a S.4092 party here at work yesterday - brought in donuts and printouts of the Rocky editorial and a couple of news stories about the bill's passage. A lot of people are sad that it took an act of Congress to settle this, but happy that Congress has put a stop to the shenanigans.

As soon as Golden officially concedes, I'm looking forward to a nice lunch buffet at Woody's... I miss Woody's...

Hmmmm. Someone in Congress (presumably) is at risk of losing his job because he reported the existance of a bill that had already been passed? :rolleyes:

...and was in the public record since it's submission? :rolleyes:

Here is a couple of photos I put together back in 2003 when the commissioners voted to approve the LCG proposal.
http://lawood.home.mindspring.com/Tower/OLD_TOWER.jpg
http://lawood.home.mindspring.com/Tower/NEW_TOWER.jpg

I emailed thank you notes to Allard, Salazar, and Beauprez yesterday. I have received only the canned receipt confirmation from Allard's office so far, in response.

[/QUOTE]Jeffco board Chairman Kevin McCasky said Monday that the commission had not been informed previously about the federal legislation. He said the county was about to schedule a hearing on the case.

“We were prepared to make a decision,” McCasky said, adding that the recent election of Democrat Kathy Hartman to the board put a kink in the plans, because she needed time to review the case before a hearing.[QUOTE]

Good grief! Failing to comply with the judge's order to act with all deliberate speed on the issue, they wasted so much time that the players started changing again. If they had done what they were supposed to have done in the first place, Kathy Hartman would have been sworn-in in time to attend the ground breaking and wouldn't have needed to study the issue at all.

BTW, almost bought our second HDTV this Christmas, but decided to wait another year. Retiree income just doesn't provide the kind of descretionary funds I had working at the Flats. Anyway, now I won't have to figure out how to divert part of my antenna farm signal to another DTV in a different floor in the house. If the new tower is operational in 18 months, I'll only have a few months to wait and a nice in-door antenna will work just fine. Hooray!

Here is a couple of photos I put together back in 2003 when the commissioners voted to approve the LCG proposal.
..............

Funny, in all my trips around Lookout, I don't remember seeing those "X's".

Personally I think the (S)CARE folks might still like the top one better, maybe they should be given the option. :cool:

I know I should have showed the tower on the right falling on the third tower from the right which in turn falls on the first tower from the left which in turn falls on the last one standing. I remember hearing from reliable (maybe I should say unreliable) sources that a cascading tower collapse was just waiting to happen.

...A lot of people are sad that it took an act of Congress to settle this... Yeah, literally.
It literally took an Act of Congress...

I know I should have showed the tower on the right falling on the third tower from the right which in turn falls on the first tower from the left which in turn falls on the last one standing. I remember hearing from reliable (maybe I should say unreliable) sources that a cascading tower collapse was just waiting to happen.

Don't make jokes about things like that. Remember, the construction time will be delayed when the original channel 4 tower falls on the new LCG tower during the 'ice storm of the century' and the whole thing slides down the mountain and lands on the main street of Golden. Hundreds, if not thousands could be killed. And of course the worst part will be the school bus full of children which is radiated from the RF emissions since, of course, the whole falling assembly will still be connected to the transmitter through that long extension cord used during constrction. It will take several months to recover from that which could again delay the tower completion.

The US Census Bureau estimates the metro population as of 7-1-05, about a year and a half ago, at:

Denver/Aurora - 2,359,994; Ft. Collins/Loveland - 271,927; Greeley - 228, 943; and Boulder - 280,440. That totals 3,141,304 and pretty much covers the Denver DMA. 20% of that is 628,260 and 15% is 471,196. So I guess 600,000 is pretty close.


I didn't check all of your numbers, but Greeley is way off. I figured it was around 100,000, but I checked at Cencus.gov and is says:
The 2005 population estimate for Greeley, Colorado is 87,596

I didn't check all of your numbers, but Greeley is way off. I figured it was around 100,000, but I checked at Cencus.gov and is says:
The 2005 population estimate for Greeley, Colorado is 87,596

I was going to say the same thing but I'm guessing it's all the outlying areas too... Evans and the like whereas the other stats is probably strictly within Greeley city limits. Not sure but yeah, those numbers sound high to me too, even for the Fort Collins/Loveland area. That seems about 2x what I expected it to be. I've been wrong before though.

Hundreds, if not thousands could be killed. And of course the worst part will be the school bus full of children which is radiated from the RF emissions since, of course, the whole falling assembly will still be connected to the transmitter through that long extension cord used during constrction.
Yea, and at 7:00 am on the Today Show, Matt will be showing pics of the carnage(in HD). The whole damn nation will see the bodies of those 2 & 3 headed kids, that the whole Denver area has been trying to hide. Oh, the shame. :o
....jc

Evans would add about 17,000 to the total #.

OK guys, I didn't make this up. My population numbers came from:

www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/estimates%20pages_final.html

I'm assuming that the number for Greeley, for example, is not just a count within the city limits.

I just clicked on your link and got this:
Sorry, the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server.

Don't make jokes about things like that. Remember, the construction time will be delayed when the original channel 4 tower falls on the new LCG tower during the 'ice storm of the century' and the whole thing slides down the mountain and lands on the main street of Golden. Hundreds, if not thousands could be killed. And of course the worst part will be the school bus full of children which is radiated from the RF emissions since, of course, the whole falling assembly will still be connected to the transmitter through that long extension cord used during constrction. It will take several months to recover from that which could again delay the tower completion.Just a small correction....it'll probably take more than a couple of months to recover from that because all those people would have been sleep deprived for months before the tower collapse due to evil RF....

What do you folks have against Blu-Ray?
I am in the pro Blu-Ray for the main reason of 20% MORE storage capacity.
Also, I don't like how Micro$oft has weasled their way into HD-DVD standards.


Back on Target ... I have sent e-mails thanking the congressional folks.

# Matt

As others have mentioned, this isn't really the place for a debate, but here is a quick summary of my feelings.

The main reasons I support HD-DVD over Blu-Ray are:

Lower cost ($400 for a HD-DVD player on sale/discount)
Better image quality - HD-DVDs use the more advanced codecs, where Blu-Rays are using mostly MPEG-2 (note that this will probably change)
Cool interactivity (Blu-Ray will probably catch up with this as well)


I don't have anything AGAINST Blu-Ray or Sony, I just like HD-DVD better. I'm also indifferent towards Microsoft.

BTW, do you have a Blu-Ray player? I've talked to quite a few people who are "pro Blu-Ray" who have never really seen either format. Before the formats came out, I was also pro Blu-Ray (based on specs).

Edit: I also wanted a new upscaling player, and the HD-DVD players are supposedly some of the best upscalers around. The premium over something like the Oppo was only $200 and was comparable in price to something like a Denon.

[quote}
* Standards are good. Sony helped create the CD common format, it worked. Sony helped the DVD forum came up with DVD, it took. The DVD forum comes up with HD-DVD and Sony feels the need to create another format instead of sticking with the industry group (see point #1)

In this case Sony wasn't the bad guy. Toshiba came up with the HD-DVD format on their own then got Microsoft on their side. All the other CE manufacturers worked togeter to come up with the Blue Ray format. Sony gets the bad press since they are the ones who are its biggest supporter.

As far as the space issue, most of the current HD-DVD titles are almost filling a dual layer disc without much in terms of special features.

Just my $.02

Kurt

In this case Sony wasn't the bad guy. Toshiba came up with the HD-DVD format on their own then got Microsoft on their side. All the other CE manufacturers worked togeter to come up with the Blue Ray format. Sony gets the bad press since they are the ones who are its biggest supporter.

As far as the space issue, most of the current HD-DVD titles are almost filling a dual layer disc without much in terms of special features.

Just my $.02

My understanding is that Sony and Toshiba both presented their vision of what an "HD-DVD" would be to the DVD forum. The forum picked Toshiba's. So Sony formed their own industry group (typical Sony) and got lots of CE manufacturers and studios on board. In direct competition with the established DVD Forum industry group.

And sure, a single HD-DVD can be consumed with just the movie. No reason we can't have 2-disc special edition HD-DVDs. Didn't seem to hurt DVDs at all to have bonus materials on a 2nd disc.

The main reasons I support HD-DVD over Blu-Ray are:

Lower cost ($400 for a HD-DVD player on sale/discount)
Better image quality - HD-DVDs use the more advanced codecs, where Blu-Rays are using mostly MPEG-2 (note that this will probably change)
Cool interactivity (Blu-Ray will probably catch up with this as well)


Biggest reasons I bought a HD-DVD player. That and I wanted an upconversion DVD player and the HD-A1 I bought is awesome at that. But nothing compared to a very good HD-DVD movie.

This I will not forget. And, while sCARE, Golden and the rest of the anti-tower crowd may be unhappy, they are going to escape without the punishment that they deserve.

Did you really mean to say: they are not going to escape without the punishment that they deserve.

Since that 73 acres that the current towers are sitting on is "zoned residential," LCG should sell it to KB Homes or another developer to develop at the City of Golden's mandatory n houses per acre instead of turning it into open space. (n = 8 in Fort Collins, not sure what it is in Golden.)

Would that be sufficient punishment for sCARE?

For those of you who have the DirecTV HR20, and want the OTA software, you can force a download tonight!!

See information here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=72983

Did you really mean to say: they are not going to escape without the punishment that they deserve.
Nope. I stand behind the original statement.

Sure, the new tower goes in. But they are responsible depriving not only the entire metro area, but the outlying areas(like me) of the enjoyment of Digital TV. Not only that, but many of us(due to their actions) had to waste copious amounts of time and spend more money than should have been required to receive those Digital signals. And, due to their actions, many of us still can't receive the signals that we desire. So, the damage is still being done.
....jc

As others have mentioned, this isn't really the place for a debate, but here is a quick summary of my feelings.

The main reasons I support HD-DVD over Blu-Ray are:

Lower cost ($400 for a HD-DVD player on sale/discount)
Better image quality - HD-DVDs use the more advanced codecs, where Blu-Rays are using mostly MPEG-2 (note that this will probably change)
Cool interactivity (Blu-Ray will probably catch up with this as well)


I don't have anything AGAINST Blu-Ray or Sony, I just like HD-DVD better. I'm also indifferent towards Microsoft.

BTW, do you have a Blu-Ray player? I've talked to quite a few people who are "pro Blu-Ray" who have never really seen either format. Before the formats came out, I was also pro Blu-Ray (based on specs).

Edit: I also wanted a new upscaling player, and the HD-DVD players are supposedly some of the best upscalers around. The premium over something like the Oppo was only $200 and was comparable in price to something like a Denon.

Ditto Squidboy!
I drank the BR cool aid and got rot gut. BR sucks right now. Until they use VC-1 on everything and fully support lossless Dolby True-Hd and DTS-HDMA, I am out of the BR loop.

I bought the panisonic and Samsung BR players and took them back to BB. The format sucks compared to HD-DVD for twice as much. There are exactly 25 films I want in the format and until they stop using MPEG2 and start using the new audio formats for the same price as an HD-DVD player, Sony can kiss my ass!

Nope. I stand behind the original statement.

OK, I was thinking that you were trying to say that they shouldn't get away without being punished, when really you are saying that you believe they wlll be "getting away with murder."

Some tower letters in the Post and Rocky today. I think there's one from our side. ;)

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_4834542

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/letters/article/0,2777,DRMN_23966_5211868,00.html

I think there's one from our side. ;)It's that Ernie guy again.

It will be interesting to see if the letters continue, or if the controversy just dies down now. I'm predicting the latter.

It will be interesting to see if the letters continue, or if the controversy just dies down now. I'm predicting the latter.

I can't believe people are still saying the RF is going to go up! Yes, during the overlap it will be higher, but in Feb 2009 after analog is shut off, it will be lower!

I also can't believe people still think this is about HDTV. It's not. It's about the future of all television in Denver. Without a suitable digital broadcast site, Denver goes dark in Feb 2009. No analog, no standard definition, no nothing. Not even a reason to carry the remains of the stations on cable or satellite.

-Glen

I saw an FCC map that shows about equal (not larger) signal coverage from an alternative site. From one of the 12/14 letters to the Denver Post, Larry Fike comments:

'That map reflects a larger coverage area for the high-definition signal by placing the broadcast tower in the remote Squaw Mountain site. Such a placement would not only deliver the signal to more households, but would also accomplish a reduction in risk to human beings'

Realizing that he is somewhat stretching the coverage issue, if that site is available, why not build the tower there?

--- CHAS

I saw an FCC map that shows about equal (not larger) signal coverage from an alternative site. From one of the 12/14 letters to the Denver Post, Larry Fike comments:

'That map reflects a larger coverage area for the high-definition signal by placing the broadcast tower in the remote Squaw Mountain site. Such a placement would not only deliver the signal to more households, but would also accomplish a reduction in risk to human beings'

Realizing that he is somewhat stretching the coverage issue, if that site is available, why not build the tower there?

--- CHAS
The problem is there is a huge mountain shadow blocking the signal from the NW metro area. That map shows the area but it doesnt go far enough into town. KBDI proved 25 years ago that Squaw Mountain does not cover Boulder.

Realizing that he is somewhat stretching the coverage issue, if that site is available, why not build the tower there?Squaw is less viable because of the shadowing that occurs in the foothills, west of Wadsworth. The map you saw probably doesn't account for that. It's also less accessible from downtown, both by vehicle (maintenance and emergency) and by remote signals (think remote news camera). Also the land is not owned by the broadcasters on Squaw, as it is on Lookout Mtn.

Believe me ... the alternatives have been analyzed to death with the same conclusion -- the current tower site is best.

CHAS (or sSCARE spy),

One, Squaw is possible, but why should LCG pay for rent when they've owned their own land for over 50 years.

Second, The residents around Squaw don't want a new tower in their neighborhood just as much as the Lookout residents. To build a new tower there, there would have to be new County public hearings. Can you say years and years of testimony, votes, injunctions, judges, lawsuits etc.

Third,
Even though the coverage area looks similar to Lookout, there are key problems. The majority of homes all along the front range west of Wadsworth would not receive any signal due to the front range shadowing the area. No reception in large population areas like Golden, Lakewood and Boulder.

Enough reasons?

I saw an FCC map that shows about equal (not larger) signal coverage from an alternative site.The coverage from Squaw extends somewhat further out onto the plains (since it is a higher location). But since it is up IN the mountains, then there is an area of shadowing that extends several miles east from the edge of the foothills. So if you live in Boulder or Golden or Morrision you would be out of luck.

To sum it up, Squaw would cover more area but fewer people. The guys who surveyed for the towers 50 years ago knew what they were doing; the existing towers are on Lookout for good reason.

I didn't even think about the non signal coverage issues but I can verify those as I worked for KBDI in the early years. Several times we had to rent a snowcat and once even a helicopter to get the engineer to the transmitter, and any live show from Boulder required a second truck parked at the scenic overlook to act as a microwave relay.

Another reason Squaw doesn't work is because the land sCARE wants LCG to build on is National Forest land. Does it make more sense to build a tower in an existing tower farm or in a national forest?

No, I'm not a sCare spy. In fact, I live near Stroudsburg PA. I have been following this whole issue from afar for a couple of years now because I find it interesting. I do visit the Denver area regularly.

I believe Over The Air television is an essential element of our society. I also know the radiation issue is a Red Herring (Do a search on my screen name).

But, I find the lack of published detailed information about the project to be appalling. That newspaper map is a prime example. There are modern propagation models that can show those coverage shadows so that oversimplified map only has served the tower opponents. Let's see a detailed coverage map. The same kind of comment applies to modeling of electromagnetic power densities.

That mountain backdrop.. What will the tower look like? Towers no longer need to look like those 50 year old monstrosities. Architects have computerized tools to make realistic now/then simulations of new projects. Vail did computer modeling of the Beaver Creek resort to maximize it's visual appeal. Design a nice looking tower and show me a high fidelity picture of what will I see (not trying to minimize a previous poster's effort) when I view the new tower from Denver, from Golden from other vantage points?

Lake Ceder Group needs better public relations about this matter. Although a better effort on their part will never convince sCARE but will gain them support from disinterested parties. You might think the new law will render that point moot but it doesn't. The tower may get built on Lookout but the stations will still need to be good neighbors.

Comments from someone not emotionally involved --- CHAS

That mountain backdrop.. What will the tower look like?

3D model of the tower can be viewed at http://www.hdtvcolorado.com/content_pages/beforeafter.htm

CHAS,

Is this the type of computer modeling that you were looking for?

http://www.hdtvcolorado.com/content_pages/beforeafter.htm

You can download the computer animations and take a look for yourself.

As to your request for more in-depth information about TV reception and projected signal strength. I have always wanted to see the same information and feel that LCG should have posted the maps they presented on their HDTVcolorado website.

If memory serves me correctly, at a tower meeting there was reference to coverage maps including terrain shadowing that were presented to the BCC. I would love to see them.

I do feel that it is important to point out that CARE/Al Hislop/Golden have never argued that shadowing will not occur (they down play it but admit the problem exists) they argue that stations can build translators to fill in the shadow areas.

Who will build these translators and pay for them? I can promise you that CARE/Al Hislop/Golden aren't reaching for their wallets to make this happen.

The point I am making is that even the opposition to the tower concedes that Squaw has some issues. They may not agree to the level of shadowing to the west of Denver but they know that some shadowing will occur.

-Matt

Thanks guys

--- CHAS

One of the editorialists feared RF like some plague. Shows you how effective SCARE tactics have been to date. It's also way too sad that facts don't seem to matter once the emotional chord has been pulled. it would be interesting to know how much that person uses his cell phone.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Senate Bill was required because SCARE and Golden and the damn Judge were just not willing to sit down and work things out. Right from the get-go it was gonna be their way or no way. I still laugh and smile every time I think about this ending because there could not have been a more poetic just ending.

Deb - perhaps next time you'll understand that what goes around comes around and you'll actually try to be constructive instead of obstinate to the point of being totally unreasonable. It thrills me no end that the entire US Senate & House put an end to SCARE's lying and obstructionism.

David Harsanyi in the Post had a column today about government intrusion in the Lookout tower issue.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_4834941

Here is the best comment he made:

"Mr. Bestor, ... meet a mirror.

The city of Golden opposed the tower vigorously. They lost one battle after the next trying to halt the project. In the end, they ignored a judge, filed eminent-domain petitions to condemn the proposed site - which, incidentally, was outside the city limits of Golden.

Don't let a map stop you."

Yea, and at 7:00 am on the Today Show, Matt will be showing pics of the carnage(in HD). The whole damn nation will see the bodies of those 2 & 3 headed kids, that the whole Denver area has been trying to hide. Oh, the shame. :o
....jc


But no one on the front range besides the Golden area residents will know about it because no one will get any TV signal (analog or digital). ;)

"As Golden City Manager Mike Bestor stated when he heard about the legislation, this is 'why people hate government.'"

No, this is why people hate lawyers, a subset of whom work in government.

The continued coverage of the tower bill.

http://goldentranscript.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2006-12-14&-token.story=181811.112112&-token.subpub=

This part was interesting. An expert on Constitutional law says, too bad, so sad Deb!Denver attorney Rick Kornfeld, a Constitutional law specialist, said Carney probably doesn't have a Constitutional case, though he sympathizes with her complaint.

"It seems politically motivated and a bit of a rush job, but it wasn't illegal," Kornfeld said. "As far as whatever lobbying went on behind closed doors, it's unfortunately how the system works. I can certainly understand why people are upset, but from a Constitutional standpoint, it's not illegal."

I can't believe people are still saying the RF is going to go up! Yes, during the overlap it will be higher, but in Feb 2009 after analog is shut off, it will be lower!
The TV stations aren't even that big of a contributor to RF locally on Lookout.
From Al Hilsop's post"The Lake Cedar stations currently contribute less than five percent of the radio frequency (RF) on Lookout Mountain.” This claim is correct. The high levels around the base of the current antennas are due to FM stations on other towers, and would not be significantly changed by LCG’s tower plan.

I also can't believe people still think this is about HDTV. It's not. It's about the future of all television in Denver. Without a suitable digital broadcast site, Denver goes dark in Feb 2009. No analog, no standard definition, no nothing. Not even a reason to carry the remains of the stations on cable or satellite.

-Glen

I disagree. The stations that chose same channel digital frequencies as their current analog frequencies will be able to use their existing towers. Also the others can still broadcast from Repulic Plaza at the current low power.

Additionally it would not effect cable & satellite subscrbers.

I disagree. The stations that chose same channel digital frequencies as their current analog frequencies will be able to use their existing towers. Also the others can still broadcast from Repulic Plaza at the current low power. Without this legislation, if you think sCARE and Golden wouldn't put up a legal fight over the replacement of the transmitters in the building to switch over to digital, you're dreaming. As far as the RP stations, how would you propose providing reception to those people who can't receive those stations now?

The TV stations aren't even that big of a contributor to RF locally on Lookout.

Exactly.

The stations that chose same channel digital frequencies as their current analog frequencies will be able to use their existing towers. Also the others can still broadcast from Repulic Plaza at the current low power.

Those of us in outlying regions would go dark while waiting for the exciters to be swapped out on the existing towers' transmitters.

-Glen

This part was interesting. An expert on Constitutional law says, too bad, so sad Deb!

S 4092 is like SHIVA's OTARD provisions but for broadcasters! The case law on the OTARD provisions is settled and the FCC and congress had ultimate authority.

Logically, if the FCC and congress had ultimate authority on what types of restrictions could be placed on reception devices, the FCC and congress have ultimate authority on what types of restrictions can be placed on transmitters.

I'm not a lawyer, blah, blah, blah.

-Glen

SB4092 is similar to the federal cell tower bill that allows cell providers to put towers up without local intereference. Rockford disputes any claim of unconstitutionality, arguing the federal government has claimed a right to usurp local zoning laws in placing cellular telephone transmission towers.

"This is not unprecedented," Rockford said.

Quick aside from Lookout topic...
Check out Jeopardy on KMGH (if you can). They're actually airing the HD feed of it! Wonder if they'll air the HD Wheel Of Fortune.

The continued coverage of the tower bill.

http://goldentranscript.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2006-12-14&-token.story=181811.112112&-token.subpub=

This part was interesting. An expert on Constitutional law says, too bad, so sad Deb!
Normally I am not a big fan of Marv Rockford. I think the LCG certainly has a lot of 'warts' in this case, and their flagrant arrogance over the years leading up to all this DTV mess certainly did nothing but justifiably anger many Lookout area residents. All that being said, I thin Marv summed up my feelings the best with this comment in the article above.

"This is not unprecedented," Rockford said.

As for the timing, he said the action can hardly be considered rash when the issue has been discussed for eight years. He said Judge Brooke Jackson told the Jeffco commissioners 19 months ago to make a final decision, but they have still not scheduled a hearing or a vote.


Rare words of wisdom from the LCG. I agree, enough is enough. Since the two parties couldn't sit down and negotiate this (in this case I thought the LCG did make many compromises, Golden and Jeffco refused), it was time to put an end to the madness with a sledgehammer solution. Game, Set, Match!

BTW CHAS, you referred to the coverage maps. Two maps were published last week in one of the articles in one of the local papers (may have been the Mountain Courier). I suspect that is the one you saw. As for the overlapping coverage areas shown from the Squaw site, much of the 'additional' coverage shown from there was in the Colorado Springs area, which is NOT the coverage area of the local stations. The stations in Colorado Springs and Pueblo have the rights to cover those viewers. In fact the Denver stations are not allowed to broadcast down there. As for much of the coverage on the front range west of Wadsworth and in the Boulder area, there has been much dispute over the actual coverage which can be obtained from Squaw. The local PBS station KBDI is located there and in MANY parts of west metro Denver and most of Boulder that signal cannot be received even though the map showed coverage. The shadowing caused by the foothills in those just east of Squaw mean that although coverage 'might' be available if your in the right spot it is not a sure thing. Even if you assume in those areas a 50% coverage rate (very generous at the least from my own experience), and you eliminate the coverage in Colorado Springs by turning down transmit power, the two maps are no longer comparable. A reputable group did a study many years ago which (S)CARE refused to accept, which showed the significant reduction in coverage from Squaw compared to Lookout.

At any rate, my own feeling is that 8 years is ENOUGH! (Actually after about 6 as most of you know I had had enough myself). If one side refuses to negotiate or compromise in this matter then the 'h3ll with them.

Case Closed!

I agree, enough is enough.
Yup, but still too late IMHO.

The stations in Colorado Springs and Pueblo have the rights to cover those viewers. In fact the Denver stations are not allowed to broadcast down there.
Which is a crock-o-sh!t!. I can understand trying to prevent same & adjoining frequency interference, but trying to preserve broadcast coverage(and limit competition) is something the FCC shouldn't be involved with. That's got NAB written all over it.

BTW, KOAA(NBC) in the Springs, actually is beaming their directional signal SE instead of due East, in an attempt to prevent their signal from reaching Denver viewers. How lame is that?
....jc

............
Which is a crock-o-sh!t!. I can understand trying to prevent same & adjoining frequency interference, but trying to preserve broadcast coverage(and limit competition) is something the FCC shouldn't be involved with. That's got NAB written all over it.

BTW, KOAA(NBC) in the Springs, actually is beaming their directional signal SE instead of due East, in an attempt to prevent their signal from reaching Denver viewers. How lame is that?
....jc

It's been that way since I was a kid growing up in Canon City. Those stations also service Pueblo, Canon City and most of southern Colorado, hence the need to broadcast to the south. They cover the plains with the signal, most of the towns like Canon City need translators to reach them.

As for the exclusive coverage, that's the way the law reads and the license agreements are written. It would take another 'act of congress' to change it.

Pretty strange, Jeopardy was in HD but Wheel Of Fortune was not.

Still waiting for it to show up on whitehouse.gov. Could it die in the pocket?

Don

Don's post above made me go check out the whitehouse.gov site. They have a webpage with proclamations. (This is not a partisan thing) But, they have some of the silliest days listed.

April 28th - Loyalty Day (My dog didn't even know)
Nov 28th - Methamphetamine Day (or Courtney Love Day)
Oct 12th - White Cane Safety Day (Is that a band?)
Sept 16th - To Modify Duty-Free Treatment Under the Generalized System of Preferences Day (Huh???)

Can we submit a new one? How about...
Dec 9th - CARE Gets Their Ass Kicked Day!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/proclamations/

David Harsanyi in the Post had a column today about government intrusion in the Lookout tower issue.
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_4834941
He had a couple of jabs at Golden, but his editorial was filled with a lot of inaccuracies. I sent in a response; chances are it won't get printed, but we'll see.

As others have mentioned, this isn't really the place for a debate, but here is a quick summary of my feelings.

The main reasons I support HD-DVD over Blu-Ray are:

Lower cost ($400 for a HD-DVD player on sale/discount)
Better image quality - HD-DVDs use the more advanced codecs, where Blu-Rays are using mostly MPEG-2 (note that this will probably change)
Cool interactivity (Blu-Ray will probably catch up with this as well)


I don't have anything AGAINST Blu-Ray or Sony, I just like HD-DVD better. I'm also indifferent towards Microsoft.

BTW, do you have a Blu-Ray player? I've talked to quite a few people who are "pro Blu-Ray" who have never really seen either format. Before the formats came out, I was also pro Blu-Ray (based on specs).

Edit: I also wanted a new upscaling player, and the HD-DVD players are supposedly some of the best upscalers around. The premium over something like the Oppo was only $200 and was comparable in price to something like a Denon.

Cost ... a PS3 (which is Blu-ray) starts retail at $499. This in my book is a non-starter anyways, every player cost will be easily dwarfed by the total combined cost of media over its lifetime.

Image quality ... that is up to the media vendors, they could easily output POOR product in both formats. The Blu-ray does have a higher bitrate thruput requirement of all players than does HD-DVD, allowing for potentially higher performance media.

Both have interactivity standards ... PS3 using this as a format for games comes to mind.

Vendors signed on ... Blu-ray has 7 outta 8 top media vendors (only Universal is missing), and has the lions' share of hardware (computers included) vendors.

And, yes, I do have a Blu-ray player.

# Matt

Sounds like the Golden City Council meeting was a major sour grapes fest Thursday night:
http://denver.yourhub.com/GOLDEN/Stories/News/General-News/Story~161310.aspx

They should have streaming video from the meeting posted Tuesday at http://ci.golden.co.us/SectionIndex.asp?SectionID=72

Doesn't Golden have a beltway to fight? Why is it still wasting tax dollars and time on this?

Oh, I can't wait to see the video. This ought to be good! In the past Marv or Steve Gray went to the meetings, but if they went this time, they'd have been strung-up. I was hoping one of us went undercover to get the details.

Just a quick not for D* users with HR20's. There will be another software update available tonight which enables OTA on the receivers. See the information on how and when to force the download on the Denver Satellite forum.

Posted by TotallyPreWired:
BTW, KOAA(NBC) in the Springs, actually is beaming their directional signal SE instead of due East, in an attempt to prevent their signal from reaching Denver viewers. How lame is that?

Posted by JMartinko:
It's been that way since I was a kid growing up in Canon City. Those stations also service Pueblo, Canon City and most of southern Colorado, hence the need to broadcast to the south. They cover the plains with the signal, most of the towns like Canon City need translators to reach them.

As for the exclusive coverage, that's the way the law reads and the license agreements are written. It would take another 'act of congress' to change it.

Are you saying that KOAA has a directional signal away from Denver to prevent any coverage of the Denver DMA? And that this is due to licensing agreements? If so, without some facts to back this up, I disagree.

I don't think network affiliations have anything to do with signal patterns. Is there something in the FCC licensing process that asks about network affiliation and adjacent DMA's? I don't think so. Stations do change network affiliations and I don't think they change their signal patterns whenever they change network affiliation as a result.

There are numerous locations in this country where you can receive the same networks from different DMA's. Washington/Baltimore is probably the prime example. I have a sister who lives west of Rochester NY and can receive both Rochester and Buffalo stations. When I lived in Cincinnati, I could receive all Cincinnati and Dayton stations, two from Louisville, KY, two from Lexington, KY, and one from Indianapolis. I received 4 stations with NBC affiliation. And on a good night I could get another one from Columbus, Ohio. There's a Fox station in Cheyenne and Fox's KFCT in Ft. Collins. Other examples include New Orleans/Baton Rouge, Boston/Providence, San Francisco/San Jose, Detroit/Toledo, Cleveland/Akron/Youngstown, Austin/San Antonio, etc, etc, etc. When I temporarily resided in Dana Point, CA for a few months, I could receive all of the LA and San Diego stations.

I believe the reason KOAA beams most of it's signal away from Denver has nothing to do with licensing agreements and certainly nothing to do with any FCC position that they would invade the Denver DMA. The Palmer Divide effectively blocks signals from Colorado Springs so why waste ERP in that direction? You don't see Denver stations beaming full power West from Golden for the same reason. I believe that folks out east, like in Bennett, Elizabeth, etc., can receive both the Springs and the Denver stations. I can receive analog channels 5, 27 (before the Spanish low power station in Denver came on the air) and 33 from Cheyenne with rabbit ears on a TV in one of my bedrooms.

So if I'm wrong, please enlighten me with some facts about FCC rules and regulations and network licensing agreements.

Posted by TotallyPreWired:


Posted by JMartinko:


Are you saying that KOAA has a directional signal away from Denver to prevent any coverage of the Denver DMA? And that this is due to licensing agreements? If so, without some facts to back this up, I disagree.

I don't think network affiliations have anything to do with signal patterns. Is there something in the FCC licensing process that asks about network affiliation and adjacent DMA's? I don't think so. Stations do change network affiliations and I don't think they change their signal patterns whenever they change network affiliation as a result.

There are numerous locations in this country where you can receive the same networks from different DMA's. Washington/Baltimore is probably the prime example. I have a sister who lives west of Rochester NY and can receive both Rochester and Buffalo stations. When I lived in Cincinnati, I could receive all Cincinnati and Dayton stations, two from Louisville, KY, two from Lexington, KY, and one from Indianapolis. I received 4 stations with NBC affiliation. And on a good night I could get another one from Columbus, Ohio. There's a Fox station in Cheyenne and Fox's KFCT in Ft. Collins. Other examples include New Orleans/Baton Rouge, Boston/Providence, San Francisco/San Jose, Detroit/Toledo, Cleveland/Akron/Youngstown, Austin/San Antonio, etc, etc, etc. When I temporarily resided in Dana Point, CA for a few months, I could receive all of the LA and San Diego stations.

I believe the reason KOAA beams most of it's signal away from Denver has nothing to do with licensing agreements and certainly nothing to do with any FCC position that they would invade the Denver DMA. The Palmer Divide effectively blocks signals from Colorado Springs so why waste ERP in that direction? You don't see Denver stations beaming full power West from Golden for the same reason. I believe that folks out east, like in Bennett, Elizabeth, etc., can receive both the Springs and the Denver stations. I can receive analog channels 5, 27 (before the Spanish low power station in Denver came on the air) and 33 from Cheyenne with rabbit ears on a TV in one of my bedrooms.

So if I'm wrong, please enlighten me with some facts about FCC rules and regulations and network licensing agreements.


You are certainly welcome to disagree. I do not have the time nor desire to dig through all of the FCC licenses for the Colorado Springs and Pueblo Stations. I also have never visited any of the sites to see what kind of antennas they have. We would first have to establish the coverage area required under their license agreements. I was referring more to the locations of their transmit towers. What I do know from growing up in that area is that those stations have always been licensed for coverage of Southern Colorado (Colorado Springs, Pueblo and south as well as Canon City, Florence etc.). Given any antenna and allowed power level, there is only so much power to go around. A station must first and foremost cover its assigned area or risk losing it to another applicant.

I do know that you are granted a license to cover a certain area and if you don't you can lose your license. Since the two stations located in Colorado Springs are licensed to cover Pueblo, and as you point out, cannot cover much reliably north of Monument, it would seem to be a waste of broadcast power not to have your signal directed toward the south. Certainly the towers are located on Cheyenne Mt. south of the city so they can be seen from Southern Colorado. I believe those stations have the license to cover pretty much all the way to the southern and southeastern Colorado borders. If they had mounted the towers on a location like the northeastern or eastern side of Pikes Peak, they certainly could broadcast farther north to the Denver area, but could not reach many parts in the south (much like a transmitter on Squaw would be shadowed along the front range and north to Boulder). AFAIK, Channel 5 in Pueblo still has its transmitter in Pueblo (they did when I was a kid in Canon City, it was the only station available to us without a repeater which didn't come for several years to bring the Colorado Springs stations.


Of course there are many areas with overlap in the country. I lived west of Philadelphia for many years and could pick up dozens of stations outside of the area. But I would assume in all cases the overlap does NOT occur at the expense of assigned coverage areas.

My comments were related to a comment something to the effect that those stations should be directing more power towards Denver to compete in this market for viewers. I simply stated that IMO to do that at the expense of coverage of their licensed area could result in the loss of their license to a competitor. YMMV.

Are you saying that KOAA has a directional signal away from Denver to prevent any coverage of the Denver DMA?
That's what I read. And, I did check the FCC data, and they are indeed beaming their signal to the SE instead of due East.

And that this is due to licensing agreements?
Apparently.

If so, without some facts to back this up, I disagree.
Read this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8632529&&#post8632529) post and decide for yourself.
....jc

That's what I read. And, I did check the FCC data, and they are indeed beaming their signal to the SE instead of due East.


Apparently.


Read this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8632529&&#post8632529) post and decide for yourself.
....jc
Looks like the data more or less backs up my theory. I wasn't aware they used a directional antenna at KOAA but I am not the least bit surprised. I would tend to belive Snuffy's report based upon my knowledge of the history of the area. For most of the late 1950' and into the mid 1960's KOAA was the ONLY TV station available south of Colorado Springs. It wasn't until repeaters were first put up (for the first few years they were very poor and snowy, at least in Canon City) that we had access the Springs stations, and then only with a major roof antenna and rotator. KOAA has historically been the news and emergency station for most of southeast Colorado. The Southeast pointing must be intended to cover Walsenburg, Trinidad, etc. I would guess the Springs stations would have to support repeaters to reach that far, but maybe not. Can't say from experience.

As for the overlap being regulated, I am pretty sure that it IS regulated to some degree, but a station is allowed to cover its area with an omni at full power if it does this to cover its own area, and overlap in those conditions are allowed. Obviously a station cannot just attenuate the signal in a specific direction or stop it at a specific distance from the transmitter. Since the Springs stations (AFAIK) came after KOAA they may have a slightly different coverage area specified. Don't ask me to back that up since it has been a long time since I read the FCC rules. I know the subject also came up in reviewing coverage from Squaw in the northern direction toward Cheyenne, but that was several years ago and my memory ain't what it used to be.

Based on the news articles regarding the on-going battle by Durango et al to receive Colorado broadcasts instead of New Mexico broadcasts, it seems that Congress determines who can receive what. The FCC merely enforces that legislation. In the Durango case, the Colorado Congressional delegation cannot get the New Mexico delegation to agree to the DMA change. So, Durango doesn't get the Broncos games, they get the Dallas Cowboy's games.

Based on the news articles regarding the on-going battle by Durango et al to receive Colorado broadcasts instead of New Mexico broadcasts, it seems that Congress determines who can receive what. The FCC merely enforces that legislation. In the Durango case, the Colorado Congressional delegation cannot get the New Mexico delegation to agree to the DMA change. So, Durango doesn't get the Broncos games, they get the Dallas Cowboy's games.


Most of the people in the south west corner of the state are from Texas anyway.:D

................it seems that Congress determines who can receive what. The FCC merely enforces that legislation.
Actually I think that is the way the founding Father's intended the Republic to work.

TPW & John, I agree with what you say about "license to cover", covering S CO, etc. What I think you missed from my post, and perhaps I wasn't clear enough about it, and to express it in a different way, was that KOAA has a historical license to cover that does not go into the Denver DMA. As you expressed it well, KOAA must cover the area it's licensed to cover and may not be able to do so if they sent more signal towards Denver. They do have a directional signal to the SE as a result. As a result, this isn't some conspiracy of sorts to keep their signal out of Denver as was purported/implied in TPW's post.

However, I still do not believe there is anything in any license agreement involving KOAA staying out of KUSA's way, or, prior to KUSA's NBC affiation, out of KCNC's way, to NOT send signal into the Denver DMA. That's the point I was trying to make with all of the examples I provided for other geographic locations. In other words, network coverage overlaps are OK anywhere but CS/Denver? I still don't think so. It doesn't pass the smell test.

I did read the Snuffy101 post in the CS thread when it was posted. I almost replied to it then, but I didn't. Personally, if the KOAA engineer said that, my opinion - not fact - is that he probably doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. Again, coverage overlaps are OK just about anywhere in the country except between NBC affiliates in CS/Denver?? An easy way to validate this is to see if someone from KUSA, or formerly from KCNC, knows of some agreement not to overlap signal coverage. I say it's bull until something factual is presented that proves otherwise.

And CEBII, I understand your point, and it is valid. But the SW CO counties Alb. v Den DMA feud has nothing to do with OTA signals

Anyway, nice discussion. It's always good to have a little disagreement to keep the thread interesting.

I was also wondering if anyone has received any other new replies to emails from the Congressional delegation re: tower.

T
I was also wondering if anyone has received any other new replies to emails from the Congressional delegation re: tower.

I have yet to receive anything but the automatic receipt of email acknowledgement from Allard's office. Nothing else from Allard and nothing at all from Salazar and Beauprez.

I received this from Mark Udall's office:

Dear William:

Thank you for letting me know you support Congressional action to allow a new tower to be built on Lookout Mountain to broadcast digital television. I appreciate hearing from you about this subject.

On December 6, 2006 the Senate passed a bill (S. 4092) providing that any holder of an approved Federal Communications Commission (FCC) permit to construct or install either a digital television broadcast station antenna or tower, or both, on Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County, may construct, install, use, modify, replace, repair, or consolidate such an antenna or tower, or both at that location so long as the antenna or tower is no higher than the tallest existing analog broadcast antenna or tower at that location. The bill specifies that this can be done notwithstanding any applicable State or local land use or condemnation laws or regulations, but that all applicable Federal laws and regulations will still apply.

Early in the morning on December 9th, the House of Representatives was asked to agree to the Senate bill and did so without a vote, sending the bill to the president to be signed into law.

The intent of the legislation is to facilitate broadcasting of digital programs to people who do not get television by cable or satellite. I had concerns about such action to override our state and local laws and authorities, but I decided not to intervene in this matter because it was backed by both of Colorado's Senators and because Lookout Mountain is not located in the Congressional District I represent.

Thanks again for contacting me. To do my job well, I need to hear critical feedback from my fellow Coloradans. For more information about my positions, please visit my website at www.house.gov/markudall and sign up for my email newsletter.

Warm Regards,

Mark Udall
Member of Congress

Sounds like the Golden City Council meeting was a major sour grapes fest Thursday night:
http://denver.yourhub.com/GOLDEN/Stories/News/General-News/Story~161310.aspx
You'll also note the most important part of this "story": it is written by Laura Elliott, whom, as the tag line of the article mentions, is the media relations specialist for CARE and a Golden resident.

Another Anti-Tower column in the RMN today.

Why Let Senators Off Easy And Slap Golden? (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/speak_out/article/0,2777,DRMN_23970_5216774,00.html)

My favorite line,
The city of Golden is representing the interests of its residents. The senators are representing the commercial interests of the broadcasters.
She might have added ".........the commercial interests of the broadcasters, and the interests of anywhere from 600,000 to several million front range residents". My guess is that last part accidentally got deleted from her text document. :rolleyes:

Another cluster of letters to the editior in the Post today.
Scroll halfway to 'TV tower struggle'

TV Tower Struggle (Letters to Denver Post 12/17/06) (http://www.denverpost.com/letters/ci_4842105)

Another cluster of letters to the editior in the Post today.
Scroll halfway to 'TV tower struggle'

TV Tower Struggle (Letters to Denver Post 12/17/06) (http://www.denverpost.com/letters/ci_4842105)

I love the fact that both of the pro-tower letters point out the simple fact that the existing antenna towers had been there LONG before the residents moved in. The "stockyards" metaphor was AWESOME.

I just e-mailed the White House to encourage the President to sign S. 4092-ES. It needs to be signed by the end of the day Tuesday to avoid the veto ala pocket. You can monitor bill signings at whitehouse.gov/news. E-mails can be sent to comments@whitehouse.gov

Don

TV Tower Struggle (Letters to Denver Post 12/17/06)

"...a super-tower on Lookout Mountain that will emit 9 million watts of electromagnetic radiation, 13 times the amount currently emitted from the Lake Cedar Group towers on the mountain...

Ned Connolly, Golden "

" ...to build a broadcasting tower on Lookout Mountain which will blast the nearby residents with radiation far in excess of healthy limits...

Joe Schultz, Golden "



I see that the sCARE propaganda machine is still running strong.

Kurt

TV Tower Struggle (Letters to Denver Post 12/17/06)

"...a super-tower on Lookout Mountain that will emit 9 million watts of electromagnetic radiation, 13 times the amount currently emitted from the Lake Cedar Group towers on the mountain...

Ned Connolly, Golden "

" ...to build a broadcasting tower on Lookout Mountain which will blast the nearby residents with radiation far in excess of healthy limits...

Joe Schultz, Golden "

Kurt
If this is really true. Look what they get for free.
http://lawood.home.mindspring.com/Tower/Free.jpg

Is the tower up yet?

I think there's going to be more letters in the RMN tomorrow. They just called me about my letter. (The same one the Post published last week. I sent it to both)

I got my call from the Post today (see post 17311 at the top of the page).

I'm pretty naive about why the PBS stations here do not broadcast in HD. Can someone explain why and what their plans are - I assume they will go to Lookout.

I just e-mailed the White House to encourage the President to sign S. 4092-ES. It needs to be signed by the end of the day Tuesday to avoid the veto ala pocket. You can monitor bill signings at whitehouse.gov/news. E-mails can be sent to comments@whitehouse.gov

Don


Looks like he didn't sign it today. Does that mean he has one more day? :confused:
We may have celebrated too early.................................

I'm pretty naive about why the PBS stations here do not broadcast in HD. Can someone explain why and what their plans are - I assume they will go to Lookout.Well, KRMA does broadcast the PBS-HD feed between 6PM and midnite. That's only 3 hours of actual programming, since the 6 to 9 PM block gets repeated from 9 to midnite. And some of the programs end up being wide-screen upconverts rather than true HD. They used to carry the 3PM to 6PM block also, but dropped it last year to make room for Create; too bad that some of their best HD shows were in that time block.

As for why there isn't more, I think the answer is money. PBS started charging for the HD feed a year or two ago and many affiliates dropped it entirely.

I don't see KBDI coming to Lookout, since they have never had a presence there. KRMA, on the other hand, has their analog tower (ch 6) on Lookout today and was originally part of the LCG consortium. Their plans have been up in the air since they left the consortium. I have no inside information, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility they might either rejoin LCG or flash-cut their existing transmitter on Lookout to digital in 2009.

Looks like he didn't sign it today. Does that mean he has one more day? :confused:
We may have celebrated too early.................................


According to this site (http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/legisFAQ.html#pres) , the ten days do not include Sundays. The bill was passed on Saturday, the 9th, so the President has until the end of the day on this Thursday, the 21st, to sign it. (if my math is correct- but this new math is very hard for me.)

-Wabisabi

Anybody know why KUSA is pillarboxing the news? They are still broadcasting an HD signal and the picture quality still looks good so it appears to be an internal decision??

TV Tower Struggle (Letters to Denver Post 12/17/06)

"...a super-tower on Lookout Mountain that will emit 9 million watts of electromagnetic radiation, 13 times the amount currently emitted from the Lake Cedar Group towers on the mountain...

Ned Connolly, Golden "

" ...to build a broadcasting tower on Lookout Mountain which will blast the nearby residents with radiation far in excess of healthy limits...

Joe Schultz, Golden "



I see that the sCARE propaganda machine is still running strong.

Kurt

It is a little disconcerting to me that none of the pro-tower letters address the real RF radiation statistics. I don't have the accurate data myself or I'd put it in my letter to the RMN. I hope one of our future letters gets the facts out on this subject as some "average Joes" I've talked to seem concerned about the big numbers they see te NIMBYs quoting for RF radiation exposure.

I called KUSA just after 6:00 when the news was not in HD, just like it wasn't at 5:00. They told me they could pass on network HD but they were having technical difficulties with their live feed (newsroom) and they were working on it. I didn't watch any network programming on KUSA tonight - flipped between MNF and Altitude, but the 10:00 newscast was still not in HD. Leno was in HD and Conan is right now as I write this.

More pro-tower letters in the Rocky today.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/letters/article/0,2777,DRMN_23966_5222842,00.html

I called KUSA just after 6:00 when the news was not in HD, just like it wasn't at 5:00. They told me they could pass on network HD but they were having technical difficulties with their live feed (newsroom) and they were working on it. I didn't watch any network programming on KUSA tonight - flipped between MNF and Altitude, but the 10:00 newscast was still not in HD. Leno was in HD and Conan is right now as I write this.

MHM,
I noticed the same thing, and was told that they had equipment problems today as well. The problem is only with KUSA's stream, so the news is still in HD when they are on KTVD, but not KUSA. I too watched Late Night in HD...so you are correct, they must still be able to 'pass through' NBC feeds in HD. No word on how long before it will be repaired.

On another note, has anyone else been noticing the digital 'hickups' that occur regularly on KMGH-DT over the last few weeks regardless of if they are showing HD content or SD? I believe when a similar thing was happening a few months back with KTVD it was described as an "Encoder" problem. Am I the only one this bothers?

Gleefully counting the days until I see dirt being moved on Lookout Mtn! :)

I also noticed that KUSA still has a solid blue or green line down the left side of the 4:3 picture when running SD syndicated programming like Extra.

Still having problems this morning. News was still SD, and Today jumped back and forth twice in the first couple minutes. I just checked 20 and the news is HD

Commissioners Auburn & Congrove write last minute 'hail-mary' letter to Bush to veto bill. (McCasky abstains)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5223713,00.html

It is a little disconcerting to me that none of the pro-tower letters address the real RF radiation statistics. I don't have the accurate data myself or I'd put it in my letter to the RMN. I hope one of our future letters gets the facts out on this subject as some "average Joes" I've talked to seem concerned about the big numbers they see te NIMBYs quoting for RF radiation exposure.

The "real statistic" is, probably, that all the NIMBY's up there have purchased cell phones for each and every one of their kids, and have no fear of seeing them walk around with that little RF transmitter slapped up 'side their brains.

And, at less-than-an-inch, the "radiation" from the cell phone is far above what they would ever get from "nine million watts" of non-coherent radiation that is mostly directed far above their heads.

Two pro-tower letters in the News today (including Ernie's). http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/letters/article/0,2777,DRMN_23966_5222842,00.html Nothing in the Post. :(

Ken and CEB - there was a lot of discussion about the RF emissions from the towers a few months ago (maybe early summer). A lot of numbers were discussed at that time, but I don't remember the specifics. While both towers are operating (if that ever happens), the total emissions would go up quite a bit. But I also recall someone posting a quote from Al Hislop that the current towers (the ones to be replaced by the consolidated tower) only emit about 5% of the total RF from Lookout. Also, the new tower will have more directional antennas, so the level of emissions reaching the ground in Golden wouldn't be 13x what it is now.

MHM,
On another note, has anyone else been noticing the digital 'hiccups' that occur regularly on KMGH-DT over the last few weeks regardless of if they are showing HD content or SD? I believe when a similar thing was happening a few months back with KTVD it was described as an "Encoder" problem. Am I the only one this bothers?:)


It would probably bother me if I ever watched KMGH. Now that ABC has lost MNF and the BCS bowl games, and generally has such pathetic prime-time programming (I'm not into prime-time soap operas), I hardly ever tune in. I did watch Jericho, but it hasn't been on for several weeks. If the "hiccups" are a recent phenomenon, then I wouldn't have seen them.

Just received a reply to my email to Senator Salazar's office:

Thank you for contacting me regarding my decision to support legislation that allows Denver broadcasters to replace the existing broadcast towers on Lookout Mountain with a new consolidated broadcast facility that will provide Denver with full power, digital broadcasting. I appreciate hearing from you.

You may be interested to know that Denver is the only metropolitan area that does not yet have widely distributed, free high definition television. The long running, contentious local battle over the Lookout Mountain tower site has effectively prevented Colorado residents from receiving high definition signals. This delay is not superficial, as it has effectively placed Denver in last place in the federally mandated transition to digital television. When the transition period under existing federal law ends in early 2009, analog signals will cease and anyone with an analog television set will loose their television signals. A consolidated broadcast facility on Lookout Mountain will prevent a disruption of service. Denver must be proactive so that, instead of playing catch up, it occupies the cutting edge of new technologies.

This new high definition broadcast tower will help Denver remains one of the most competitive and technologically savvy metropolitan areas in the country. Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator

On another note, has anyone else been noticing the digital 'hickups' that occur regularly on KMGH-DT over the last few weeks regardless of if they are showing HD content or SD? I believe when a similar thing was happening a few months back with KTVD it was described as an "Encoder" problem. Am I the only one this bothers?Are you referring to macroblocking breakouts in a part of the picture, most often around the edge of am object such as a person's head? If so, yes I've noticed it, it is annoying and it is reminiscent of a similar problem that occured a while back.

No action by the President today, either. :(

Meanwhile, watching the NIMBYs in Golden and the JeffCo Commissioners in action, it's clearer than ever that both Golden and JeffCo should be boycotted if at all possible.

I heard that Mike Rosen did a segment on the tower issue today. I missed it. Anybody listen in?

Commissioners Auburn & Congrove write last minute 'hail-mary' letter to Bush to veto bill. (McCasky abstains)Kinda gives the game away as to how they were going to rule on the issue, huh?

I heard that Mike Rosen did a segment on the tower issue today. I missed it. Anybody listen in?

The show hour is available for download from the Mike Rosen show web page. You do have to log in though. It's the 11am hour of the show.

http://www.850koa.com/pages/shows_rosen.html

-Glen

Timay - here are the profiles you requested. You are correct about your friend's location. These plots make it obvious why Lookout is better than anything else, even if the top of RP is over 5700'. Sorry for the delay.

I also noticed that KUSA still has a solid blue or green line down the left side of the 4:3 picture when running SD syndicated programming like Extra.

That is a result of the Warner Bros. GDMX encoders. All of the video streams on the Warner Bros. mux (6 of them :( ) have the cyan color on the left edge. All KUSA has to do to eliminate the problem is to crop the 720 pixel image to 704 and all will be well. This means that any program they get from the Warner Bros. GDMX DVB-S feed will have the problem. Any program they get from the Pathfire feed will not.

This problem has been there, if I remember correctly, ever since they combined two satellite muxes into one.

For those who are interested, both Jeopardy! and Wheel Of Fortune were broadcast in HD on KMGH-DT tonight.

For those who are interested, both Jeopardy! and Wheel Of Fortune were broadcast in HD on KMGH-DT tonight.

Wanna know the winner and Final Jeopardy clue answers for the next two shows? :D :D

It is unfortunate that they have to frame the Jeopardy contestants for safe 4:3 viewing. The shot of the three contestants would look a lot better if they could fill the 16:9 frame. Right now it has the letterbox & pillarbox effect, just without the black bars.

It is unfortunate that they have to frame the Jeopardy contestants for safe 4:3 viewing. The shot of the three contestants would look a lot better if they could fill the 16:9 frame. Right now it has the letterbox & pillarbox effect, just without the black bars.Unfortunately, as long as the HD programming content has to consider those who are still watching SD 4:3, that will be a compromise we have to accept.

At least Channel 7 finally got up to speed and is transmitting the HD content on their digital OTA.

I'm waiting for the football coverage to take advantage of the 16x9 format. You ~don't~ have to always center the camera on the football/line of scrimmage. There's nothing but empty behind the running back, but there's always something going on in the defensive backfield (that we usually don't get to see)...

Just another 2¢

Oh, OT - would SB4092 take effect by default ~if~ Mr. Prez doesn't sign? I don't know the political process (do I really want to?).

Resume party.

Unfortunately, as long as the HD programming content has to consider those who are still watching SD 4:3, that will be a compromise we have to accept.

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the reasons why. Maybe the shows they tape in Jan 2009 for airing in Feb 2009 they'll start shootin real 16:9 content, since everyone will have to have HD content converted to 4:3 letterbox, if they are still watching on 4:3 sets.

At least Channel 7 finally got up to speed and is transmitting the HD content on their digital OTA.

Our local NBC affiliate has both shows and they do not have the ability to record DVB-S HD content, let alone air it. They should be able to once Pathfire HD is finally up and running.

Guess you don't want to know the winner and questions for the next two shows :D

A good friend of mine was Salazar's Colorado chief of staff (now Bill Ritter's chief of staff). I told him tonight I got a nice reply from Ken (same as posted earlier) and mentioned that Ken did the right thing. He agreed and had told Ken, before the bill came up, that passing the Senate bill was the only thing to do.

He did comment that they are getting LOTS and LOTS of negative feedback (way more than the positive by a bunch!). I would think that any of you reading this that have not thanked Allard and Salazar are slackers! Do your duty to even the slate!

Oh, OT - would SB4092 take effect by default ~if~ Mr. Prez doesn't sign? I don't know the political process (do I really want to?).

I believe it was pointed out here, because Congress is now finished for this session, if the Prez does nothing, it will be an automatic pocket veto. If Congress was still in session, then they would automatically become law.

Dig back thru the postings to be sure.

We're only 48hrs away to being SOL here. What are the odds that he doesn't sign it and sCARE will have a leg to stand on again?

If it makes you feel any better, there were about 20 bills passed at the end of the session, give or take. Bush has signed 18 of them up to today. That leaves only a couple more. I'm sure he'll find the time in the next two days to sign those.

I really wish LCG or someone else would simply prepare data showing how the energy entering SCARE member's homes from the digital transmissions will be negligible compared to that generated by their own cell phones, WiFi signals and even flourescent light fixtures in their offices and homes.

Let's see them organize to get all cell towers removed from their neighborhoods instead.

I really wish LCG or someone else would simply prepare data showing how the energy entering SCARE member's homes from the digital transmissions will be negligible compared to that generated by their own cell phones, WiFi signals and even flourescent light fixtures in their offices and homes.They have. At the many JeffCo hearings, LCG presented very compelling charts and graphs showing the reduction of RF with the new consolidation tower.

But, if anything, sCARE's rhetoric machine is very good. They continue to spew at every opportunity their message "Let's scare the cr@p out of everybody". And with numbers like 1000 times the RF or 9 MILLION Watts it sounds bad. Of course, most of it is BS, but nobody calls them on it. (Well, we do, but nobody knows us). LCG does get the truth out there, but nobody can persuade the Kool-aid drinkers on Lookout residents.

-----------

I did listen to the Rosen show link. He made an excellent point that pretty much sums up the entire tower issue. (Not an exact quote)

No matter where they build the LCG consolidation tower, someone won't want it. The residents of Lookout don't want it, the families on Squaw don't want it, people of the eastern plains don't want it. So, it makes most sense to just put it where the existing towers already are. There is far less of an impact on our community by consolidating existing towers, than by building a tower in a new location or by adding additional towers to existing locations!

If it makes you feel any better, there were about 20 bills passed at the end of the session, give or take. Bush has signed 18 of them up to today. That leaves only a couple more. I'm sure he'll find the time in the next two days to sign those.
That actually makes me feel worse. I would have thought he would have signed them all at once. :(

Remember, this is Clueless George http://home.earthlink.net/~lu-max/my_webs/confused_ico.bmp , the President who has only vetoed 1 bill during his entire presidency. I don't think even he can confuse an antenna with a stem cell ;) (but who knows :D )

ahh, top of the page bonus!

Remember, this is Clueless George http://home.earthlink.net/~lu-max/my_webs/confused_ico.bmp , the President who has only vetoed 1 bill during his entire presidency. I don't think even he can confuse an antenna with a stem cell ;) (but who knows :D )

ahh, top of the page bonus!
It's the "Clueless" part that has me worried. :eek:

He did comment that they are getting LOTS and LOTS of negative feedback (way more than the positive by a bunch!). I would think that any of you reading this that have not thanked Allard and Salazar are slackers! Do your duty to even the slate!
This is not good, but doesn't surprise me. For anybody at the BCC hearings you know how badly the opposition out numbered the supporters. So obvious the numbers are still in their favor and we are still out numbered. Remember it is in there backyard so they are vocal. For the rest of the people who knows. Don't care, don't know, not interested, ETC.

I would have thought he would have signed them all at once.
Your hands get tired. And they have to do the funky sign your name thing with 5-6 different pens for collectors items to contributor/supporters.

Update: Just checked the whitehouse website and they're starting to post items.

Your hands get tired. And they have to do the funky sign your name thing with 5-6 different pens for collectors items to contributor/supporters.

Update: Just checked the whitehouse website and they're starting to post items.
Nothing for at least the past three hours. :(

It's the "Clueless" part that has me worried. :eek:Can we all leave the political commentary out of it?

I also suspect Bush has had more than one pocket veto in his career; it's not like he's specifically taking action to veto the bill, he just hasn't signed it so far.

I did listen to the Rosen show link. He made an excellent point that pretty much sums up the entire tower issue. (Not an exact quote)

No matter where they build the LCG consolidation tower, someone won't want it. The residents of Lookout don't want it, the families on Squaw don't want it, people of the eastern plains don't want it. So, it makes most sense to just put it where the existing towers already are. There is far less of an impact on our community by consolidating existing towers, than by building a tower in a new location or by adding additional towers to existing locations!I wish he would have known about the shadowing issue.

It's one thing to tell people that Lookout is a "better" location, and yet another to tell people that most of Boulder County couldn't see a signal from Squaw Mountain.

Likewise he also didn't know about the reflections from the mountains that would make a transmitter on the plains unfeasible.

I don't expect Mike Rosen to be an expert and know these things, but it's too bad no one else calling in did, either. :(

Can we all leave the political commentary out of it?

I also suspect Bush has had more than one pocket veto in his career; it's not like he's specifically taking action to veto the bill, he just hasn't signed it so far.

It's pretty hard to leave politics out of this mess, politics is a major reason we are here.

As for your suspicion "Bush has had more than one pocket veto in his career", check this page.

Presidential Vetos In History (http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/vetoes.html)

It shows only one veto of any kind since he became President. As for my concern as to the political side, I have no way to determine which side has the highest paid lobbyists. That side usually wins.

Hey W, CHECK YOUR POCKETS! :eek: ;) :D

Some confusion on my part as to how long he (W) has to sign the bill. Is it by end of today or end of tomorrow?

Anybody else getting a lot of snow on their screens? Oh wait, I'm looking out the window...never mind.

Some confusion on my part as to how long he (W) has to sign the bill. Is it by end of today or end of tomorrow?

Anybody else getting a lot of snow on their screens? Oh wait, I'm looking out the window...never mind.
Since when do people on THIS forum look out the window (unless you are waiting for the cable guy or sat installer???
:D

I think it was posted that he had until Thursday night??? I only worry because I hardly think "W" has any knowledge about DTV transitions and land use problems in Colorado, and I really doubt he is curious enough to dig into the details behind the bill. Because of that, he can only act based upon his advisors. I doubt he is sitting in his office demanding to see a Colorado land use bill. I 'assume' he has other things to worry about. I would also doubt a pocket veto of a Colorado land use bill would be headline news, even on cable news channels.

Well, they posted the bills signed today and no go. We still have tomorrow. Remember, it was one of the very last to get passed. It's not high on any one's agenda... except us!

Well, they posted the bills signed today and no go. We still have tomorrow. Remember, it was one of the very last to get passed. It's not high on any one's agenda... except us!
I think our best hope is the fact that it was sponsored by a Republican Senator. If only the Democratic side initiated it or was backing it I wouldn't give it a chance. I would be somewhat surprised if "W"s second veto was used against something sponsored by his own party. One thing is for sure, even if it was signed today, I doubt there would be any construction started tonight anyway. Anyone getting any snow??

They are at it again. I know this is OT, but the local HD weather girl has just said it'll be 45 on Monday ("wonderful" I think was the term). However, the NWS is calling for 35. Same old "up-forecasting" from our HD self-promoting news station. The only reason I'm watching is they are the only local news on now and I'm sorry to see nothing has changed in the past 3 months (when I stopped watching their news, HD or not).

Sorry for the OT post but if we can post political opinions I figure this is fair game too......

I wonder what conditions are like on Squaw Mountain?

I wonder what conditions are like on Squaw Mountain?Ktmglen, You only got 81 posts. But, that was a great one! ;)

Washington; The White House (Dec 20) -- By CHAS

President Bush tired during a marathon bill signing session today. Under orders from the White House physician, he retired to bed early requiring the cancellation of a state dinner for Vlad XXV of Transylvania. A White House aide assured reporters that Mr Bush was not afflicted with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome but was suffering only from acute writer's cramp.

The first symptoms occurred as the President worked his way through the last of recently approved House Bills and began signing the Senate bills. Remaining is a Bill crafted by the Colorado Congressional delegation to facilitate High Definition Definition Television in the Denver area.

Just before retiring for the day, President Bush quipped, 'I thought everyone knows the definition of television. Why do I need to define it higher? That waits till tu-mar-row'. :D

I'm wondering if anyone from LCG or the Senators know if the President intends to sign the bill. Typically he signs the bills with people present who are associated with the bill. Thus wouldn't people have to be notified prior?

I assumed that one signature would cover all of the bills that were included in that group of "non-controversial" bills, no?

I assumed that one signature would cover all of the bills that were included in that group of "non-controversial" bills, no?
One Signature to Rule Them All. LOTR :rolleyes:

I'm wondering if anyone from LCG or the Senators know if the President intends to sign the bill. Typically he signs the bills with people present who are associated with the bill. Thus wouldn't people have to be notified prior?

That's true.

I would think that one or both of our sponsoring senators would be notified of a signing ceremony. Are either of them still in DC? I know Salazar has been on the tube a bunch lately pumping the Demo's convention for Denver, but it wasn't clear from where he was speaking. If Allard is still in DC, that would be a good sign. If he intended to fly back for a signing tomorrow, I'm afraid he is SOL.

Ktmglen, You only got 81 posts. But, that was a great one! ;)
Thanks. I should have waited for the top of page bonus.

This is going to be noticed if it doesn't get a signature tomorrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

Don

Ernie have you heard anything regarding this.


Case No.: 06-125749VC TABLED FOR DECISION Mike Chadwick, Case Manager
KWGN, INC.
1006 Lookout Mountain Road, Golden – PIN# 40-042-00-008
Appeal of previous Zoning Administrator's determination of the telecommunication uses permitted on this site.
This case was tabled to today’s hearing, from the December 6, 2006 hearing for a decision only.

Ernie have you heard anything regarding this.


Case No.: 06-125749VC TABLED FOR DECISION Mike Chadwick, Case Manager
KWGN, INC.
1006 Lookout Mountain Road, Golden – PIN# 40-042-00-008
Appeal of previous Zoning Administrator's determination of the telecommunication uses permitted on this site.
This case was tabled to today’s hearing, from the December 6, 2006 hearing for a decision only.

According to my contact, the BOA upheld the Zoning Administrator's determination. The tower is considered Legal Non-Conforming.

I guess it is back to the courts for this one.

-Wabisabi

According to this site (http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/legisFAQ.html#pres) , the ten days do not include Sundays. The bill was passed on Saturday, the 9th, so the President has until the end of the day on this Thursday, the 21st, to sign it. (if my math is correct- but this new math is very hard for me.)

-Wabisabi

Does anyone know if the ten days starts on the 9th, or the 11th? If it starts on the 9th (the day it was cleared for the White House), then 10 days are up today. If it starts on the 11th (the next working day after the bill passed), then the 10 days are up tomorrow.

How late does the President stay up to sign bills?

-Wabisabi

The Pres today did appoint two positions in broadcasting. So, I hope our Bill will be in his hands tomorrow.

The President has recess appointed Warren Bell, of California, to be a Member of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The President has recess appointed Mark McKinnon, of Texas, to be a Member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Does anyone know if the ten days starts on the 9th, or the 11th? If it starts on the 9th (the day it was cleared for the White House), then 10 days are up today. If it starts on the 11th (the next working day after the bill passed), then the 10 days are up tomorrow.

How late does the President stay up to sign bills?

-Wabisabi

Wabisabi,

Here is an interesting article about the ten day rule. I guess nobody knows and will have to be defined by the Supreme Court someday.

http://electbarnhill.com/2006/10/24/presidents-inaction-may-equal-pocket-veto/

S.4092 would be the first pocket veto in this decade. Unbelievable.

Don

On again off again is the story of this tower. Any victory to date has been followed by defeat and it looks like history is about to repeat yet again. I think the chances of getting Congress to pass this a 2nd time are about as good as SCARE giving the LCG a shovel for the ground breaking ceremony. Incomprehensible.

Well I'm hopeful we've got one more day, as it doesn't look like he's gotten around to signing any of the Senate bills in the general range of S. 4092 yet.

I bet his staff put this as one of the very last things to do. It's not high on the priority list. I feel one last surge of good karma. Also, I've been checking and haven't seen any websites that list this bill as his first veto. I would think if the time had lapse, it would make news somewhere.

Woo Hoo! Top of the page! See, good karma!

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

Update: The White House into page has started to update: White House News (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/)

I'm tired of climbing through 4 foot snow drifts to clean the snow off my E* dish. Thank god I have OTA digital television. I wish everybody could have it.

I can't get any of the Fox HD OTA sig's. All the others are loud and clear.

Fox HD OTA is fine for me.

No problems with any OTA stations during the storm. I did lose one or two satellites on my D* dish yesterday. I can't get to the roof, but today, all is OK. Good thing the snow is light and must have slid off the dish.

I'm getting all of the major DTV channels during this storm with my normal setup (XG91 pointed slightly west of RP), except KWGN. For for a solid, steady, KWGN signal, I have to switch to my LOM pointed antenna.

No issues with OTA here. The wind must have been strong enough to keep the snow off of the flat roof.

Did he sign it yet?

Bad news, thus far. Bill signings have been posted, but S 4092 isn't among them.

Bad news, thus far. Bill signings have been posted, but S 4092 isn't among them.I haven't given up hope yet. Yesterday, they posted a few, then posted another link with all of them in one big list. So, it's not over yet, they're just messin' with us and giving sCARE more gray hair!

I just received this email from Ken Salazar:

Dear Mr. Rich:

I write in response to your inquiry regarding my decision to support legislation, introduced by Senator Allard, that allows Denver broadcasters to replace the existing broadcast towers on Lookout Mountain with a new consolidated broadcast facility that will provide Denver with full power, digital broadcasting. This decision was reached after careful consideration. The entire bipartisan Colorado Congressional Delegation supported the final legislation.

I have thoroughly reviewed all relevant concerns of those opposed to the new tower, concerns which have been spelled out in local hearings, in court papers and in the press. I do not minimize these concerns, but I have concluded that they do not outweigh the positive attributes of the project, which will provide digital television to Denver area residents. I agree with those who first brought television to Denver in the 1950’s that Lookout Mountain is the best place from which to broadcast television signals. The physical structure of the tower itself poses no danger to nearby residences. In addition, the radio broadcast signal will continue to operate under existing county and federal regulations.

Congress should decide a local issue like this only in rare circumstances, but this is such a case. Denver is the only metropolitan area that does not yet have widely distributed, free high definition television. The long running, contentious local battle over the Lookout Mountain tower site has effectively prevented Colorado residents from receiving high definition signals. This delay is not superficial, as it has effectively placed Denver in last place in the federally mandated transition to digital television. When the transition period under existing federal law ends in early 2009, analog signals will cease and anyone with an analog television set will loose their television signals. A consolidated broadcast facility on Lookout Mountain will prevent a disruption of service. Denver must be proactive so that, instead of playing catch up, it occupies the cutting edge of new technologies.

I have very much appreciated the feedback of the community on this issue. I agree that all relevant concerns must be addressed before moving forward with an issue as complex and consequential as the one at hand. In this case, I am confident that they have. It is my hope we can look to the future together so that Denver remains one of the most competitive and technologically savvy metropolitan areas in the country.

Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator

Yea, I just received my:
Thank you for contacting me regarding my decision...
Which is identical to the one CEB posted on 12/19.

So, despite sCARE's efforts to look like the majority, he's seeing the opinions of the real majority! :p
....jc

Here is something interesting...from "Thomas- Library of Congress"

S.4092
Title: A bill to clarify certain land use in Jefferson County, Colorado.
Sponsor: Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] (introduced 12/6/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 12/20/2006 Presented to President.

My question is if the bill was just presented to the president yesterday, does that begin the clock ticking, or is it when both houses pass the bill? If it is the former, than there is much more time available for him to sign.

Which is identical to the one CEB posted on 12/19.
It is not identical.

I got the same email on 12/19. This is more complete explaining that, for example, "I have thoroughly reviewed all relevant concerns of those opposed to the new tower...".

He probably felt it necessary to explain to the naysayers that he did not take his action lightly. This in light of the fact that he apparantly got way more negative comments than positive ones. I would assume this same email would go to everybody who commented or made "inquiries."

From the article posted earlier it is 10 days from when it is presented, not including Sunday(s):

From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7: “…If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevents its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

more

The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or “putting a bill in one’s pocket” until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto.

If Jet's correct, then we have quite a bit more time. Whew!!

Presented to the Pres on 12/20 + 10 = Jan 1, 2007 (Not including the 2 Sundays and the day it was presented 12/20)

If the President doesn't sign it won't it become law by anyway?

If the President doesn't sign it won't it become law by anyway?
No unfortunately it won't. See pocket veto in messages above. Congress adjourned
for the year the day they passed the bill. It was one of the last they passed this year.


On another issue. I have a Samsung SIR-T451 and several weeks ago I lost the
capability to receive KBDI (Digital Channel 38, Mapped channels 12.1 12.2 & 12.3).
I have a MYHD MDP_130 in a computer and it receives KBDI. Anyone else with
the SIR-T451 in Denver that can't receive KBDI?

It is not identical.
:rolleyes:
Denny, 'ol buddy, 'ol pal, I said that my letter was identical(to CEB's letter), and it is.

On another topic: A road grader with a huge blade mounted on the front(as opposed to the blade that is between the front and rear wheels[which was there but raised] just plowed us out! WooHoo!

There's just one minor problem: The 3-4' drifts in my driveway!
....jc

In case you haven't seen the letter (http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/S4092%20Jeffco%20Commissioners%20Letter.pdf) from the BCC to the president.

In case you haven't seen the letter (http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/S4092%20Jeffco%20Commissioners%20Letter.pdf) from the BCC to the president.They had to do that to keep face with their constituents. Political pandering.

Kind of a short, weak letter with no teeth or serious rebuttal don't you think?

Hmmm, aren't there 3 Commissioners?

Dear Mr. President, two of us are wrong and highly biased, the other is not. We want you to go along with the two of us in our own special 'majority'. What is more, we think we are more powerful than our representatives in Washington.

Thank you, Moe and Curly

I lost 6-1, 7-1 and 20-1 last night. All are back now except 7-1. I think it is a line of sight thing for me because I have trouble in the fall with leaves. Some channels are really weakened, but have enough power to be viewable.

'Presented to the President' is an elevation in status compared to 'Cleared to White House'. There are several unsigned Bills in the Thomas list that were introduced during the final session of Congress. Somehow I don't think the POTUS intends to veto them all.

--- CHAS

Here is something interesting...from "Thomas- Library of Congress"

S.4092
Title: A bill to clarify certain land use in Jefferson County, Colorado.
Sponsor: Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] (introduced 12/6/2006) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 12/20/2006 Presented to President.

My question is if the bill was just presented to the president yesterday, does that begin the clock ticking, or is it when both houses pass the bill? If it is the former, than there is much more time available for him to sign.

Good find fchambers. 9 days and counting.

Don

Looking at the bills that were signed yesterday, it looks like the President does like to wait until the last possible moment; most of the bills signed yesterday (December 21) show up in Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/) as having been presented to the President on December 11.

Given that (as mentioned above), S.4092 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.04092:) shows as having been presented on December 20th, perhaps we shouldn't be expecting much until December 30th…

Prolonging the agony...

I'm getting a strong signal, but just a black screen when I go to watch.

Thanks

Link to an article that appeared in the Thursday edition of the Denver Post. (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4876501)
We're being overrun by the wolves.
Remember government comes in all forms. This includes local.

"Now we have this bill, and our only protection is the FCC, and we know that's an utter joke," said Deb Carney, attorney for the Canyon Area Residents for the Environment, or CARE, a group of Lookout Mountain area homeowners associations. "Local zoning has been eliminated by SB4092. We're being overrun by the wolves."
'Utter Joke'? 'Wolves'? Put the shoe(or is it paw?) on the other foot darlin. Answer a few questions:
Who is responsible for depriving the entire Denver area of Free Digital TV?
Should a small group of people decide what's best for the majority?
Who stands to profit?
How many 2(or even 3) headed kids have you seen in Golden lately?
And, finally, Where's the Hummer? :p

McCasky said that while he was concerned about Congress' stepping in, the tower issue transcends county authority.
Oh no! Did ya hear that 'Deb'? It's not a neighborhood, or even a Golden issue. It sounds like he was saying that it's bigger than sCARE! Gosh, do ya think(maybe?) that he was talking about all of the other people out there? Like the greater Denver area? Eastern Colorado? And Northern Colorado? Even us people in Northern Teller County?

Gosh 'Deb' don't ya hate it when an elected official makes a statement that's really true?
....jc

Hmmm, aren't there 3 Commissioners?
Dear Mr. President, two of us are wrong and highly biased, the other is not. We want you to go along with the two of us in our own special 'majority'. What is more, we think we are more powerful than our representatives in Washington.

Thank you, Moe and Curly

ROTFLMAO!

This blizzard is a prime example of why OTA digital television signals must come from Lookout Mountain. I've heard stories of nothing but misery from those with satellite systems, having to go out and keep clearing their dishes. No such cleaning is required when you have an indoor UHF antenna as a backup and the local stations broadcasting at full power from LM.

I can't say I'm surprised the "Great Decider/Divider" at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave hasn't taken action yet. What does he care about a local zoning issue in Colorado? Conservative dogma says local issues should be decided locally. The only problem is this isn't strictly a local issue. It impacts people in three states (Eastern Colorado, Western Kansas, Southwestern Nebraska).

I still wonder what jurisdiction the City of Golden has over land in unincorporated Jefferson County, to be passing resolutions like the did the other day? I think it's time for somebody out there to drop the "Poundstone Amendment" bomb on them, and stop their attempts at annexation without the majority approval of all Jeffco registered voters. That's state law and still applies to any attempt at finger annexation. It stopped Lakewood from gobbling up unincorporated central Jeffco's tax base (ie., Southwest Plaza). It can do the same here with LM.

My suggestion for the TV stations is to start using "Poundstone Amendment", "illegal finger annexation", and "lawsuit" in their press releases, putting sCare and Golden on notice that they face an uphill fight minimally all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court. That means Golden residents will see thousands and, perhaps, millions of dollars spent defending sCare's fears against science, rather than using it to clear their neighborhood streets after a 34" snowfall.

I still want to know where Deb Carney was when Rocky Flats was poisoning us with radiation from the strontium found in the Flats' ground water, not to mention the radiation from the criticalities (uncontained, spontaneous atomic reactions) that likely took place there to create the strontium?

I would like to wish the members of (s)Care a very happy Christmachanukwanzkahs!

Enjoy your large chunk of coal! Ooh wait, burning it might release toxic deadly vapors. Better eat it instead!

I still want to know where Deb Carney was when Rocky Flats was poisoning us with radiation from the strontium found in the Flats' ground water, not to mention the radiation from the criticalities (uncontained, spontaneous atomic reactions) that likely took place there to create the strontium?

Off Topic: Numerous studies by qualified scientists and engineers under the direction of the DOE and Congress's watch-dog groups concluded long ago that the sometimes alleged nuclear criticality event(s) at Rocky Flats are a fiction. There isn't any evidence to support that a nuclear criticality event ever occurred at Rocky Flats. As to the Strontium found in the Rocky Flats buffer area, other research groups concluded long ago that it, and other nuclear isotopes found that were not associated with the mission of Rocky Flats, were the result of fallout from above ground nuclear testing, primarily by the Chinese.

Back On Topic: Without OTA broadcasting, I would have been without important safety information during the recent storm, as my satellite dish filled with snow and became unusable. Truly, OTA TV broadcasting is the true emergency lifeline for the metro-Denver community. To those who claim cable doesn't have those problems, I note that I dumped cable in 1999 because I would lose their signal every-time we had a good rain storm. They replaced my cable run twice without correcting the problem.

I can't say I'm surprised the "Great Decider/Divider" at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave hasn't taken action yet. What does he care about a local zoning issue in Colorado? All the more reason to believe he is not about to exercise his veto on a case like this, when the bill's sponsor is from his own party. As one of the previous posts noted, he has been signing bills on a regular schedule exactly 10 days after "presentation". Look for good news before the end of the year.

Like everyone else, I was really glad to have OTA tv this week. And I thought the shots Taunia got yesterday from Sky9 were awesome, especially that flyby of the DIA runway approach.

I can't say I'm surprised the "Great Decider/Divider" at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave hasn't taken action yet. What does he care about a local zoning issue in Colorado? Conservative dogma says local issues should be decided locally. The only problem is this isn't strictly a local issue. It impacts people in three states (Eastern Colorado, Western Kansas, Southwestern Nebraska). As I mentioned earlier, don't ascribe to politics what is simply process, namely looking at the timing for other bill signings, it's taking ten calendar days for bills presented to the President to actually be signed, so we've likely got another eight days or so to wait.

As for as good ol' Deb, I still say the radiation most residents of Lookout Mountain receive from their cell phones as well as background radiation levels from the mountain itself likely far exceed what they do or will receive from the television towers now or post-transition.

The rejection of the KWGN transmitter should show anyone who has any doubt what obstructionists the JeffCo board continues to be, and literally is a bright shining warning beacon as to why Congress finally had to step in and take action. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find the BCC voted the way they did explicitly because they knew the new law would obviate their vote. (Note the pending law doesn't mention LCG by name, it covers digital television towers on Lookout Mountain, period.)

The rejection of the KWGN transmitter should show anyone who has any doubt what obstructionists the JeffCo board continues to be, and literally is a bright shining warning beacon as to why Congress finally had to step in and take action. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find the BCC voted the way they did explicitly because they knew the new law would obviate their vote. (Note the pending law doesn't mention LCG by name, it covers digital television towers on Lookout Mountain, period.)
Absolutely! I can just see the hustle and bustle in sCARE headquarters(The Ministry of DisInformation) right now. Foil clothed 'people' running around, looking at old maps, trying to find a way to claim that KWGN's tower is not really on Lookout Mountain.
....jc

Better to be overrun by wolves than bitches.
Glad I'm no longer bitter.

IT"S OFFICIAL

The president signed S 4902 toady according to the whitehouse web page news.
:D :D :D

White House Daily News (Press Secretary Release) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061222-1.html)

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

HO, HO, HO!
:D :D :D :D

Tell me this is true...

Statement by the Press Secretary




STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

On Friday, December 22, 2006 the President signed into law:

H.J.Res. 101, which provides that the first regular session of the 110th Congress will begin at noon on Thursday, January 4, 2007;

S. the "United States-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act," which establishes the United States-Mexico transboundary aquifer assessment program to characterize, map, and model transboundary groundwater resources along the United States-Mexico border;

S. 362, the "Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act," which establishes programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Coast to identify, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation safety;

S. 707, the "Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act" or the "PREEMIE Act," which authorizes appropriations through FY 2011 for the Department of Health and Human Services to expand and coordinate research and educational activities related to preterm labor and delivery and infant mortality; and delays the effective date of certain Head Start regulations

S. 895, the "Rural Water Supply Act of 2006," which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to: carry out a rural water supply program; and make available loan guarantees for rural water supply projects, extraordinary operation and maintenance activity for Reclamation facilities, or improvements to water infrastructure directly associated with a reclamation project;

S. 1096, the "Musconetcong Wild and Scenic Rivers Act," which designates portions of the Musconetcong River in New Jersey as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System;

S. 1378, the "National Historic Preservation Act Amendments Act of 2006," which extends the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund and revises the membership and other authorities of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;

S. 1529, the "City of Yuma Improvement Act," which conveys certain Federal land to the City of Yuma, Arizona, in exchange for three non-Federal parcels of land;

S. 1608, the "Undertaking Spam, Spyware, and Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006" or the "U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006," which authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to provide assistance to and share information with foreign law enforcement agencies; provides for procedures for confidentiality and delayed notification when requesting information about suspected perpetrators of fraud; and provides protection to private sector entities for voluntary provision of information;

S. 2125, the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006," which promotes relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo;

S. 2150, the "Eugene Land Conveyance Act," which directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 12 acres of Federal land to the City of Eugene, Oregon, for the purpose of constructing an environmental education center and wildlife viewing area;

S. 2205, the "Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 2006," which conveys certain parcels of Federal land to the State of South Dakota; and to sell certain parcels of Federal land to leaseholders;

S. 2653, the "Call Home Act of 206," which requires the Federal Communications Commission to take action to reduce the cost of calling home for Armed Forces personnel stationed or deployed abroad; and requires the Department of Commerce to accelerate the award of $1 billion for public safety interoperable communications grants to no later than September 30, 2007, subject to the receipt of qualified applications;

S. 2753, the "Dam Safety Act of 2006," which reauthorizes the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) through fiscal year 2011;

S. 3421, the "Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006," which makes changes in several veterans' affairs programs and benefits, including: information security; health; construction; housing benefits and homeless veteran assistance; and attorney representation in benefits cases;

S. 3546, the "Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act," which requires the reporting of serious adverse associated with dietary supplements and certain non-prescription drugs sold and consumed in the United States;

S. 3821, the "Creating Opportunities for Minor League Professionals Entertainers, and Teams through Legal Entry Act of 2006" or the "COMPETE Act of 2006," which expands eligibility for the P-1 visa program for certain athletes seeking to temporarily enter the United States to participate in an athletic competition or performance;

S. 4042, which prohibits disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces, and provides for punishment of such demonstrations as a misdemeanor;

S. 4091, the "Social Security Trust Funds Restoration Act of 2006," which appropriates funds from the General Fund of the Treasury to the Social Security Trust Funds to restore amounts erroneously overpaid under the voluntary withholding of taxes program;

S. 4092, which authorizes the construction of a digital television broadcast tower on Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County, Colorado, by any entity holding an approved Federal Communications Commission permit to construct such a tower; and

S. 4093, which extends through September 30, 2007, the period of time during which certain borrowers remain eligible for Department of Agriculture guaranteed operating loans.

# # #

(the forum doesn't allow me to post URLs until I submit five posts...)

whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061222-1.html

Finally signed?

Break out the champaigne people - Congrats !

Tell me this is true...

Statement by the Press Secretary




STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

On Friday, December 22, 2006 the President signed into law:

.......
S. 4092, which authorizes the construction of a digital television broadcast tower on Lookout Mountain in Jefferson County, Colorado, by any entity holding an approved Federal Communications Commission permit to construct such a tower; and

...........

Finally signed?


Yes Virginia, there IS a Santa Clause!

:cool:

Yes!
:D

Booyah!

Great News!!!
:) :) :)

Welcome To The 21st Century!

--- Chas

Yes Virginia, there IS a Santa Clause!And Deb Carney is the Grinch!

It will now be a Merry Christmas!!

Merry Christmas to everybody!

Woohoo!

...So what happens next?

This blizzard is a prime example of why OTA digital television signals must come from Lookout Mountain. I've heard stories of nothing but misery from those with satellite systems, having to go out and keep clearing their dishes. No such cleaning is required when you have an indoor UHF antenna as a backup and the local stations broadcasting at full power from LM.



This is totally true! During the last big snowfall, our dish was covered with snow, and our D* receiver gave us the "searching for signal" screen. My wife panicked because she had no idea if she should go to work, and if she was going to go to work, should she take the highways or the side roads? She was able to call me, and I explained that she was either going to have to brush off the dish (which I didn't want her to do because the stupid installer put the dish really close to where our powerline comes onto the roof and down into the breaker box), or have me walk her through getting the digital OTA signal on our HDTV. Obviously she chose to discover how to get the digital OTA signal instead of having to go outside. It was easy...turn on the TV, turn on the receiver, enter "9-1" on the remote, watch the 9 news coverage.

She was home during the blizzard on Wednesday while I was trapped in my car on the Boulder turnpike trying to get home. The dish was covered, but my wife was able to turn on 9 news and give me better updates over the cell phone than I was able to get from the radio. Once I got home (6 hours later), I cleared the dish so we could watch satellite channels, but we ended up watching 9-1 the rest of the night.

Now, we are able to receive the signals from Republic and from Lookout, but what if we were in Boulder and couldn't?? I would have been even more screwed than I was.

Woohoo!

...So what happens next?
Somebody better go back and correct that page on Wikipedia......

After that, the next explosion you hear from Golden will be the sound of the blasting for the new tower.......well maybe not the NEXT one, that may be the sound of Deb C.'s head exploding from frustration. :eek:

WooHoo - Carney and company are getting just what they deserve for Christmas - screwed.
Gotta love it.

Now all we need is a Bronco victory this Sunday to cap off the festive mood!

FYI...that storm that dumped all that snow in Colorado is passing thru my area and leaving lots of moisture in the form of rain....:)
Happy Holidays to all.....

I've been withholding my joy, waiting for the signature.

After all this time, I'm in shock.

Bring on the tower!!!!

:p

Cheers! ~clink~ (hic) :D

See what happens when you're out of email/web range today!

WOO HOO!!! We Win. sCARE Loses!!!

WOO HOO!!! We Win. sCARE Loses!!!Ernie, you know better than that.

It's trivial to Federal Judge shop until sCARE/Golden can find one to grant an injunction, and the law will end up awaiting a ruling by SCOTUS until 2009 or beyond. :mad:

There's no grounds for an appeal or injunction on this. (One of the newspaper stories had a SC expert who said there's nothing Golden/sCARE can do) They have to have some legal grounds to get an injunction. Sure, they can try, but all they'll do is waste more of my Jeffco tax dollars. I hope Mayberry, uh, Golden's legal bafoons tell them this.

I add my woo hoo for the tower. Does anyone know if Sen Allard was present for the signing? It would be nice to email a picture of that event to Deb & Co! Perhaps Sen Allard will send her an autographed 8x10 glossy?

A friend who lives a few blocks away sprayed Pam on his D* dish and told me he had no problems. I didn't have any snow accumulate on my E* dish so I don't know if this works or not. Are the azimuths (or whatever the right term is) different for D* and E* where one of them points more towards the horizon than the other and as a result snow doesn't stick as much?

Happy holidays to all!

I haven't posted much in the last year or two as everything dragged on and on and on........but, this is the best Christmas present we could all receive. My thanks to all who wrote letters, attended events, gave testimony, etc.

Finally makes it seem worthwhile for the hours I sat listening ( dozing off ) during Evil Al's "expert' testimony and Deb's flustered attempts to try and answer a question she wasn't prepared for with a script in hand.

Ahhh, sweet victory!

Jeff

The news posted the story here (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5232862,00.html)

Thanks Mr. Pres you are my favorite person. At least for today.

Congratulations LCG!! :D

Talk about news travels fast, I just saw this ad in the Boca Del Vista "Geezer World" Newspaper.



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

Merry Christmas to all and to all good DTV reception in the future.

Thank you Colorado's congressional delegation and thank you Mr. President. Now everybody who isn't trying to make a fast buck on LOM has at least one reason for happy holidays.

Not too worried about a Federal injunction. In Federal court, the judge must be convinced that those filing for the injunction have a reasonable chance to prevail in the actual litigation being filed. Otherwise, the judge will say "file away", but the tower building goes on. Given what has already transpired regarding the tower, I can't see a Federal judge believing that sCARE and Golden have a snowball's chance in hell of winning their suit.

If I understand the bill correctly, the height of the new tower can be no greater than the height of any of the existing towers. Did the drafters of the bill put in a "screw you Deb" clause, such that instead of building a 730' tower, they can now build a tower as high as the old one?

It would be justice for sCARE and Golden to have the TV group notice the loophole and build and even taller tower. Maybe channel 2 can place their digital antenna on the taller tower :D

BTW, no snow here in southern WI (YEAH!), just lots of rain the past couple of days.

I can hardly wait to take down my 10 foot pole mounted 80" yagi on my roof and replace it with my, used once, indoor RS double bow-tie which has been stored in the basement for 5 years! I really need OTA since my D* dish crapped out for many hours during the blizzard, and I do have two TVs in the house not hooked up to anything but a rabbit ear antenna.

Most of the congrats at this point should go to the LCG lobbyists who talked Allard into putting forward this legislation. Brilliant! I have a whole new regard for Wayne!

But, what are we going to talk about in March of 2009 when this becomes "normal"? I have enjoyed participating in this in some sort of masochistic way.

Whatever, Woo Hoo!

I can hardly wait to take down my 10 foot pole...

If you are interested in selling it I could use it, afterall it's almost time for Festivus! This year it's going to be an extra festive Festivus!

Cool! Great news!!! Merry Christmas to all!

There's no grounds for an appeal or injunction on this. (One of the newspaper stories had a SC expert who said there's nothing Golden/sCARE can do) They have to have some legal grounds to get an injunction. Sure, they can try, but all they'll do is waste more of my Jeffco tax dollars. I hope Mayberry, uh, Golden's legal buffoons tell them this.Federal Judges and SCOTUS have found all kinds of strange things no one ever would have thought they would, the latest being that current paper money is illegal and must be redesigned under the terms of the ADA.

So I'm not entirely hopeful that Golden will be unable to find a Federal Judge somewhere that believes their case has some merit and will issue an injunction.

Note one additional possibility is to file motions in the new Democrat-led FCC to deny broadcasters the licenses required to build the tower.

Note one additional possibility is to file motions in the new Democrat-led FCC to deny broadcasters the licenses required to build the tower.
Can you imagine the uproar if the FCC were to rescind the broadcast licenses from the major networks in Denver because of a partisan political issue about whether or not a minor Senate Bill was legal? If the FCC revokes their license, there will be NO TV of any kind in Denver, not on cable, not on satellite (except for those on other sites). Seriously, can you imagine any scenario where that would happen?

Note one additional possibility is to file motions in the new Democrat-led FCC to deny broadcasters the licenses required to build the tower.
I would think LCG already has the license.

Off Topic: Numerous studies by qualified scientists and engineers under the direction of the DOE and Congress's watch-dog groups concluded long ago that the sometimes alleged nuclear criticality event(s) at Rocky Flats are a fiction. There isn't any evidence to support that a nuclear criticality event ever occurred at Rocky Flats. As to the Strontium found in the Rocky Flats buffer area, other research groups concluded long ago that it, and other nuclear isotopes found that were not associated with the mission of Rocky Flats, were the result of fallout from above ground nuclear testing, primarily by the Chinese.

You mean the same DOE that owned and operated the Flats and other nuclear weapons manufacturing plants throughout the country, farming out the work to various companies like Rockwell? The same DOE that had several plants RAIDED BY THE FBI on the same day? The same DOE subject to a federal Grand Jury investigation whose results cannot be released in any form to this day despite the foreman's contention that it is VITAL to citizen safety to do so? You're saying I'm supposed to trust the conclusions of the same DOE that avoided criminal prosecution because it was a federal government agency? I'm supposed to trust the GOP Congress's watch-dog groups who, since 1994, told me Enron, Arthur Andersen, and the United Way were all good corporate citizens?

Here's some food for thought. If you go back through the period and look for details of the raid in the local press, you find minimal coverage. To find a comprehensive record, you have to go to the New York Times. I guess "cow town's" newspapers don't like to upset the readers. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. But back when Rocky Flats was raided and closed down by the FBI, I personally interviewed Al Hazel, the chief of the Colorado Department of Health. The party line about above-ground nuclear testing was already in place, only then he was blaming France.

Yes, above-ground testing left all sorts of radioactive particles strewn about the planet. The concern was how much of it was found where they found it-- as in it got into the water table in such large amounts. No wonder the beer from Golden has such a nice amber glow. Clear Creek, huh? Not hardly! :rolleyes:

Way off topic, or is it? The point is where was Deb Carney, sCare, and all the suddenly-concerned conservative Goldeners back then? Hmm? The real problem for them is aesthetic and fiscal, not health. If it was all about the health threats from radiation, they'd close down the Buffalo Bill historic site today because the transmitter towers are within spitting distance. What are the cancer rates among people who worked in the BB gift shop? If anybody is going to get cancer from those towers, it's the gift shop workers. What about the rates among the kids and workers at the "Youth Services Center" (ie., juvenile prison) nearby? Are the rates higher relative to the metro area? If so, then maybe they're right. If so, they must put the new transmitters elsewhere and relocate the radio antennas. But I've not read any statistics on cancer rates for gift shop and youth center workers or inmates versus the population at large.

I just wish they would level with everybody. It's not about health. It's about the view. It's about property values.

Can you imagine the uproar if the FCC were to rescind the broadcast licenses from the major networks in Denver because of a partisan political issue about whether or not a minor Senate Bill was legal? If the FCC revokes their license, there will be NO TV of any kind in Denver, not on cable, not on satellite (except for those on other sites). Seriously, can you imagine any scenario where that would happen?

This is not a partisan issue. Both Reps and Dems in west Jeffco want this tower killed. The Reps want it killed because of the effect on property value. The Dems want it killed on environmental grounds. They found common ground based on two different desires. God help us all. :eek:

Frankly, I'd love to see the FCC cancel all of these TV licenses. As Neitszche wrote, pain is the best teacher of all. You either learn how to stop it or you die from it. That which does not kill us makes us stronger. What we need is a good dose of no information during an emergency. To quote our president, "Bring it on!"

Thanks Mr. Pres you are my favorite person. At least for today.Actually, your favorite person (for today) should be Bob Beauprez. He is the only member of the Colorado delegation who stood to pay any price by supporting this bill. Thanks to Bob for giving up his seat to run for governor, which freed him to do the right thing here.

This is not a partisan issue.
Amusing points, but I was only responding to the idea that CARE could get a Democrat-led FCC to impede this legislation by appealing to partisan issues.

I went ahead and read the legislation again, and it refers to "FCC permits" to construct a tower (not licenses, as I was responding to above). Does the FCC issue permits for construction? I thought they only licensed broadcaster to operate certain services on a certain frequency and left construction to other agencies.

Actually, your favorite person (for today) should be Bob Beauprez. He is the only member of the Colorado delegation who stood to pay any price by supporting this bill. Thanks to Bob for giving up his seat to run for governor, which freed him to do the right thing here.?? Can you explain this statement? I didn't think the House actually had a floor vote on the bill, so why would Beauprez be different than other members of the house? It was Allard and Salazar (primarily Allard) who introduced the bill originally.

Amusing points, but I was only responding to the idea that CARE could get a Democrat-led FCC to impede this legislation by appealing to partisan issues.

I went ahead and read the legislation again, and it refers to "FCC permits" to construct a tower (not licenses, as I was responding to above). Does the FCC issue permits for construction? I thought they only licensed broadcaster to operate certain services on a certain frequency and left construction to other agencies.

Democrat-led FCC? You mean the one that had Colin Powell's son for chair? The one that has Republican Kevin Martin for chair? Republicans Robert McDowell (former AT&T lobbyist) and Deborah Taylor Tate (former Tennessee regulator) as commissioners? Three out of five. Sounds like a Republican-led FCC to me.

?? Can you explain this statement? I didn't think the House actually had a floor vote on the bill, so why would Beauprez be different than other members of the house? It was Allard and Salazar (primarily Allard) who introduced the bill originally.

There was no floor vote in the House. It passed without objection under House rules. If anybody from the Colorado delegation had opposed it, it would have gone to the floor for a vote. I got this information from Udall's office.

Sounds like somebody's trying to hold Beauputz "accountable" for something he didn't do. :p

I went ahead and read the legislation again, and it refers to "FCC permits" to construct a tower (not licenses, as I was responding to above). Does the FCC issue permits for construction? I thought they only licensed broadcaster to operate certain services on a certain frequency and left construction to other agencies.
According to this page FCC DTV status (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/files/dtvstat11.html) our local stations all have "CP granted".

So do they need to still apply to JeffCo for building permits?

Probably just the standard, state building permits for electrical, plumbing etc. I'm sure LCG has everything drawn up ready to go (Most likely for the past 5 years!)

So do they need to still apply to JeffCo for building permits?

I would think so. The law does not make the land Federal Property. As a minimum, I would think the County Engineer still retains authority to certify the new tower and its associated structures to be of sound design. An engineer can be very picky about about the details. I know that because I have done it.

Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking towards Feb of 2009 when the existing towers will become unusable.

--- CHAS

I'm supposed to trust the GOP Congress's watch-dog groups who, since 1994, told me Enron, Arthur Andersen, and the United Way were all good corporate citizens?

Here's some food for thought. If you go back through the period and look for details of the raid in the local press, you find minimal coverage. To find a comprehensive record, you have to go to the New York Times.

Off Topic Again: It wasn't a GOP Congress in 1989 when the FBI raid occurred or in 1990 and 1991 when all of the outside studies were done.

There isn't a comprehensive newspaper record of the FBI raid on Rocky Flats because there weren't any reporters allowed on the scene. Least of all the New York Times, which has established a reputation for making up the news when it can't find it.

All of the "bad news" reported about the raid was merely a re-quoting of the original search warrant. No evidence was found to substantiate the most serious allegations in the warrant. To paraphrase one of the FBI special agents at a team meeting a couple of weeks into the raid, "there's nothing here, what do they expect us to find". The EPA fines were a last gasp by the Feds to get the egg off of their faces for staging such a grandiose drama and then not finding what others had told them they would find. I was there long before and long after the raid and I'm very familiar with what really happened.

Now Back To The Joy Of Tower Authorization!

According to this page [url=http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/files/dtvstat11.html]

So do they need to still apply to JeffCo for building permits?Absolutely.
My take on this is S.4092 means that a building permit cannot be denied because of zoning. The bill makes no mention of building codes and permits so permits will be required to start construction and all applicable building codes will have to be met. Ordinarily that should not pose any sort of problem because this is business as usual for any type of construction. That said we all know the outcome of the Morrison tower wherein zoning was approved for that project but it never got built. I suspect there are going to be very tough times ahead for the LCG even though S.4092 overrides local zoning laws, which is where this battle has raged since 1998 (I'm not trying to damper the enthusiasm which is justly deserved but I think we all need to understand that this bill does not mean LCG can begin construction next week).

Yes, but the timing is as good as it could be. With winter, they can apply for all that now during the construction downtime. It could have been bad if this was approved in march or April and we lost all the good weather and another year.

Absolutely.
My take on this is S.4092 means that a building permit cannot be denied because of zoning. The bill makes no mention of building codes and permits so permits will be required to start construction and all applicable building codes will have to be met. Ordinarily that should not pose any sort of problem because this is business as usual for any type of construction. That said we all know the outcome of the Morrison tower wherein zoning was approved for that project but it never got built. I suspect there are going to be very tough times ahead for the LCG even though S.4092 overrides local zoning laws, which is where this battle has raged since 1998 (I'm not trying to damper the enthusiasm which is justly deserved but I think we all need to understand that this bill does not mean LCG can begin construction next week).

I think Geof says it well. The local building permits are still required to assure local building codes are met, but cannot be denied due to zoning. In addition though, the FCC approves the frequency plans, the power levels, and also is responsible for checking and maintaining the radiation characteristics of the antennas. Local building permits do not include those types of items, so in general, the locals cannot try to override the FCC based upon RF power flux densities from the towers once the FCC has approved the design. That of course would not apply if local measurements by professionals show the levels ever exceed the allowable FCC levels, but the design has already been approved by the FCC to satisfy those requirements. What I would expect though, is that the local building inspectors will take their 'sweet time' getting out to the site for inspections and also would expect that they will create a hold up for every missing nail or loose screw they might discover.

It would sure be nice to get an update from anyone at LCG.

BTW, I've learned that AVS is a great way to kill time when your stuck on the ramp for a coupla' hours.

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

This is hilarious! :D

It would sure be nice to get an update from anyone at LCG.

BTW, I've learned that AVS is a great way to kill time when your stuck on the ramp for a coupla' hours.

Not going anywhere for a while?
;)

Did anybody happen the catch the City of Golden's December 14th meeting on webcast?
Of course not it was never made available.

This is wonderful news!

But,I too, am afraid that the Carney NIMBY cronies and backwoods Golden obstructionists are not finished with their legal games! We could hope for rational thought from these folks and a resignation that the tower will be built and Denver will have Digital OTA TV for all. I just have not seen any evidence over the last 8 years that this is possible from these people.

?? Can you explain this statement? I didn't think the House actually had a floor vote on the bill, so why would Beauprez be different than other members of the house? It was Allard and Salazar (primarily Allard) who introduced the bill originally.The floor votes were for 'unanimous consent', which means that it would have only taken a single objector to kill the deal. The point I was trying to make is that virtually all of the people who were going to be pissed off by this bill live in the 7th district (which was Beauprez's). So the fact that Beauprez was a lame duck when this bill came up was EXTRERMELY fortuitous. Had this waited til next year, Perlmutter might well have felt obligated to raise an objection to the bill, regardless of what his true feelings might be. Especially since the 7th has been the most closely matched district over the past few election cycles.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Too bad it is Christmas break. The engineers really need to start thinking about that flange design.

Don

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

This is hilarious! :DThanks, I didn't think you guys loved me anymore. :(

Shouldn't KMGH have about 43 of the "flanges" sitting around? they had enough of them on order for the last few years. If they all showed up, they could supply any and all needed. :)

Jeff

IBut, what are we going to talk about in March of 2009 when this becomes "normal"?We can still complain about multi-casting for TheTube and Weather Minus.

Hello,

I live near Broadway and Dry Creek in Centennial. I have an HR20 w/5LNB dish. I don't want to go through the trouble of mounting an outdoor or attic antenna for OTA. According to AntennaWeb, I need one with UHF/VHF capabilities. It also has been recommended that I not get one that is amplified. Can anyone recommend a good indoor antenna that meets these criteria for my geographical location?

Thanks. :)

Hello,

I live near Broadway and Dry Creek in Centennial. I have an HR20 w/5LNB dish. I don't want to go through the trouble of mounting an outdoor or attic antenna for OTA. According to AntennaWeb, I need one with UHF/VHF capabilities. It also has been recommended that I not get one that is amplified. Can anyone recommend a good indoor antenna that meets these criteria for my geographical location?

Thanks. :)For the time being (until 2009) you don't need VHF, since all of the current digital signals are UHF.

The Zenith Silver Sensor (looks like a little airplane) is a pretty good UHF antenna, and for $25 certainly would be worth a try. A lot will depend on local details - where your house is situated, how many trees you have, where in the house your TV is, etc. That's why an outdoor antenna is preferable, because it increases your odds relative to any local disadvantages you might have..

For the time being (until 2009) you don't need VHF, since all of the current digital signals are UHF.

The Zenith Silver Sensor (looks like a little airplane) is a pretty good UHF antenna, and for $25 certainly would be worth a try. A lot will depend on local details - where your house is situated, how many trees you have, where in the house your TV is, etc. That's why an outdoor antenna is preferable, because it increases your odds relative to any local disadvantages you might have..

Well, I just read that you can't use an indoor antenna if your TV is in the basement, which is where mine is located. So, I guess that's the end of that! Thanks anyway....

Can you imagine the uproar if the FCC were to rescind the broadcast licenses from the major networks in Denver because of a partisan political issue about whether or not a minor Senate Bill was legal? If the FCC revokes their license, there will be NO TV of any kind in Denver, not on cable, not on satellite (except for those on other sites). Seriously, can you imagine any scenario where that would happen?I didn't mean the stations' broadcast licenses, but rather a license to build a tower which is technically a permit, which other posters here indicate they may already have.

So like other responders, I now wish LCG luck getting building permits approved; I expect JeffCo to take obstructionist measures in that arena imminently.

Democrat-led FCC? You mean the one that had Colin Powell's son for chair? The one that has Republican Kevin Martin for chair? Republicans Robert McDowell (former AT&T lobbyist) and Deborah Taylor Tate (former Tennessee regulator) as commissioners? Three out of five. Sounds like a Republican-led FCC to me.I believe they serve at the pleasure of Congress. From reading the trade rags at least, it sounds like broadcasters are expecting the FCC to change pretty rapidly once the Democrats take control of Congress in December (reduced or no obscenity penalties, but more restrictions on advertising, especially of unhealthy foods or products that seem to be in any way targeted towards children.)

What I would expect though, is that the local building inspectors will take their 'sweet time' getting out to the site for inspections and also would expect that they will create a hold up for every missing nail or loose screw they might discover.I dunno. I think in another month or so the Jeffco authorities are going to get past the rage and denial stages, and realize that the tower is going to be built whether they like it or not. And the building inspectors are for the most part techies, who don't like getting drafted into political battles.

I dunno. I think in another month or so the Jeffco authorities are going to get past the rage and denial stages, and realize that the tower is going to be built whether they like it or not. And the building inspectors are for the most part techies, who don't like getting drafted into political battles.
I just worry the inspector will be a (S)CARE member or have a house in the area. Time will tell. I hope your right!