This is very important. If JeffCo would have accepted the 'agreement' with the clause of leaving the old towers up until all litigation stops (that includes Golden and sCARE lawsuits) it would in effect get JeffCo to pressure Golden and sCARE to give up in defeat as the only way to get the old towers removed.

That's why it is so funny. The LCG is throwing the threat of leaving the towers up right back at them, and given the existing new law, I doubt they could be forced to remove them. They could claim they are 'backup' antennas and let the (S)CARE folks stew in their own juice. In reality, they would never tear them down anyway at least until the new tower is up and all the stations are in operation from the new tower and the analog deadline has passed, so this is only a threat to leave them up after that. They would be turned off, so they would become a visual blight but a necessary one (from the LCG standpoint) in case Jeffco or someone else sued to stop the use of the new tower. I think Geof is correct, there is nothing that I read in the new law that would require them to take the old antenna towers down. I suppose that also would mean the end of that 'open space' proposed for the old sites. Obviously the LCG is no longer required to donate their old properties to Jeffco for that use. I find that position by the LCG somewhat hysterical actually. I would say good for them if I didn't have so much contempt for some of their previous actions. As it stands, I will simply stand aside and have a good laugh at the whole situation.
ROFLMAO
:D

I'm thinking that instead of open space turn it into "Towerland", a fun new amusement park for the entire family! You could put up dozens more from around the globe for the "It's an Antenna World After All" ride. Maybe even a live "Pirates of the Canyon Area" show.

And don't forget... "Space Cadet" mountain, "The sCAREy Haunted House" and possibly an "Eminent Domain-dome" stadium for concerts!

And you could sell aluminum foil hats for all the kiddies!
:D

Can somebody quickly summarize the differences between the original LGC proposal and LGCII? Why was LGCII created in the first place?

And just think, you could hold hot dogs on sticks just in front of the towers to cook your lunch. Market a little kraut, relish, onions and mustard on the side an "Towerland" becomes fun for Mom & Dad too! :D

Can somebody quickly summarize the differences between the original LGC proposal and LGCII? Why was LGCII created in the first place?
One difference was that Channel 6 dropped out , although I think they were originally included when LCG2 was submitted. The other one that was major, was that the land for the other towers would be given over to Jeffco for Open Space. I don't think that was in the original. LCG 1 was rejected (rightfully so) based largely on the grounds that the LCG did NOT provide all of the required documentation (including as I recall a alternative site assessment) in a timely fashion along with the submittal. I don't think the LCG really thought out LCG1 to be frank. I think they just rushed together a concept and assumed it would pass. It wasn't until it was turned down that they really got serious and did their design homework. Wabisabi can probably shed more light on this if he is reading.

To add to John's comments, LCG 1 did not meet all the requirements of the Jefferson County Telecommunications Land Use bill and as John mentioned they were horribly late with the alternate site submittal. After those JeffCo hearings and the subsequent NO vote on LCG 1 the LCG asked the FCC to preempt JeffCo and also filed an appeal to a JeffCo Judge. They were late with submittals to the JeffCo Judge and somehow managed to kill two years (or thereabouts) before submitting LCG2 plans. After the LCG1 fiasco it became painfully clear that they were in no real hurry to get anything approved. And they took their sweet time with LCG2 although this time around they did their homework and came up with a vastly superior proposal (as compared to LCG1).

And just think, you could hold hot dogs on sticks just in front of the towers to cook your lunch. I recall hearing once that soldiers in the Korean War liked to hang out near microwave communications relays to keep warm. Seems more likely to cook your goose than your lunch though.

And don't forget... "Space Cadet" mountain, "The sCAREy Haunted House" and possibly an "Eminent Domain-dome" stadium for concerts!
http://www.panelcrafters.net/Lookout_Park.jpg

I recall hearing once that soldiers in the Korean War liked to hang out near microwave communications relays to keep warm. Seems more likely to cook your goose than your lunch though.

Just to be clear, those stories were mostly about microwave dishes, and pretty much anyone can tell you NOT to stand directly in front of one. I worked with a friend for many years at GE Space Division back in Valley Forge, PA. who was a veteran of the Navy. He got his start in RF working as a tech on shipboard repairing early Navy shipboard microwave dishes for radar and Communications. He used to tell us stories of how in the old days they would have them climb up the tower and work on the dish feeds (cleaning off debris, repairs etc.) while the dishes were hot. He said he always wondered if it was safe. He died about 1990 from a brain tumor. No direct connection was proven since it had been about 30 or more years, but at the end, Tom told us about those days and we ran some calculations to see the PFD levels he might have been exposed to. Now days, he would not be allowed anywhere near such a dish while it was hot. FWIW the power levels do drop off pretty rapidly once you get away from the dish (1/R^2), but not if you stick your head in front of one. Those stories were likely true.

No back to your regular programming.

Mythbusters did a segment on Radar units. They hung a turkey on a ships huge Radar unit. They ran the thing for like an hour and the birds temp never heated up. In fact, it went down on one of the tests!
-------------
Ok, I have a question, anybody watch Fox tonight? I was watching Idol and some of the commercials were pillarboxed. But, at the very top, you could see about 10 scan lines of a wide-screen version of the spot. It was like they were showing a WS spot and 'cropping' the center with black bars. I've not noticed this until tonight. What's up with that? It was the network doing it and not local spots. That's weird!

Mythbusters did a segment on Radar units. They hung a turkey on a ships huge Radar unit. They ran the thing for like an hour and the birds temp never heated up. In fact, it went down on one of the tests!
-------------
................

In the early days of radar, the receivers were not as sensitive as they are today. Wide pulse widths nearing CW were often radiated. As a result of improved receiver technology, the modern radars are able to use much narrower pulse widths (resulting in far less "average" power radiation). The average power is the culprit. I would not be surprised to see a test run now that did not produce much heat in the turkey. RF engineers are a LOT smarter these days than they were in the early days of WWII. There weren't many studies done on the effects of RF during that time. Communications radar (similar to TV microwave or phone traffic links) are much different animals as the CW signals are used and the average power used is often quite high. The effect is also a function of the frequency, somewhat related to water absorption curves, the more power absorbed in the water (i.e. body matter, blood etc.) at a particular frequency, the more heat is generated. As everyone knows, some frequencies are much more dangerous than others. We tested many geosynchronous satellite transmitters/antennas at GE back in the day, and I can assure in the sweet spot they would easily cook a turkey. Obviously television broadcast satellites use CW high power transmitters. The other issue in the early days was that since no 'harm' was envisioned, men often spent a lot of time directly in front of the dishes over periods of months if not years as a part of the ground crew.

See this article (http://www.skyreport.com/#Story3) .

Public Citizen contends that the analog cutoff is unconstitutional because it was included in the law that was enacted unconstitutionally. (Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires the House and Senate to pass identical bills - apparently the DRA had two versions.)Why is it that everybody thinks they're a lawyer? What's worse, even the real lawyers think they're always right. We need to adopt some of the european ways, where you have to go before a Judge before you can even bring a case. To see if has any merit. Saves so much BS and court time.

I have no doubt you will see more of these suits as the analog shut off date gets closer. There are many marginal TV watchers (obviously no one here in the AVS forum) who are plenty upset about having to replace their TV's or at least buy a new tuner. I think this would have been less of a problem had more DTV stations been on the air sooner so that the transition would have been smoother. Thanks to places like, say, oh, just for fun lets pick a city, how about "Denver", the lack of DTV leading up to the transition will make the analog shut off seem far more intrusive than it was intended. I just don't think there was any 'clean' way to do this transition without aggravating a large group of viewers. On the other side, I really don't think any of these suits will have any success other than to perhaps delay the analog shut off date again for a year or two.

There are many marginal TV watchers (obviously no one here in the AVS forum) who are plenty upset about having to replace their TV's or at least buy a new tuner. I think this would have been less of a problem had more DTV stations been on the air sooner so that the transition would have been smoother.

Or they could have pushed ATSC tuners into smaller-sized sets much earlier than they did.

There are many marginal TV watchers (obviously no one here in the AVS forum) who are plenty upset about having to replace their TV's or at least buy a new tuner. While there are plenty of marginal TV watchers around, I don't get the sense that there is any wide scale outrage about the transition as yet.
Public Citizen, the group who filed this lawsuit, are always trying to gin up a controversy to justify their existence but I don't think much of the public knows or cares about the transition as of yet.

In the end, I think those marginal users will be more upset about the COMPLEXITY of using a new tuner box than the (subsidized) COST. My mother in law is still befuddled by using a VCR with the TV.

Or they could have pushed ATSC tuners into smaller-sized sets much earlier than they did.
Very true. But, they did escalate the requirement. In 22 days, pretty much all devices with a tuner, must have an ATSC tuner.

So, things are getting better.
....jc

wah wah wah, I have a constitutional right to my free OTA analog TV. Gimme a break.

I saw three young kids carrying a new 20" TV in to their apartment yesterday afternoon....I kinda wondered if it was DTV-Ready or not. Couldn't read the small print on the box, either, from across the lawn.

My boss and I were just talking.....if anyone didn't know, all TV stations are currently in "sweeps" (ratings period), as evidenced by the rash of "big" stories on the news. Our big "expose" for tonight is, "How much Caffeine is REALLY in your coffee?".

We thought, "All broadcasters are sitting on top of the biggest consumer-interest story in history, and we can't get the newsrooms of America interested in even mentioning it!" What would your local Consumer Reporter, or Investigative Team, say if, perhaps, someone said their new lawnmower was designed to quit working in 105 weeks? Or, their new microwave oven had a "timer" on it's tube, set to stop working in two more years? Or, their new car would require an engine swapout in early 2009?

They would be all over it. "60 Minutes". "Dateline NBC". "Geraldo". "News46 I-Team". "America's Most P.O.'ed". They'd all be hype'ing the heck out of it. But, it's not sexy, and it's too complicated to explain to J6P. Guess it's just "boring"... :confused:

Baffles my mind too Ken. My guess is that at some point in time news crews will cover it and when reality sets in as to just what this is going to mean to the average homeowner the SWHTF.

We thought, "All broadcasters are sitting on top of the biggest consumer-interest story in history, and we can't get the newsrooms of America interested in even mentioning it!" What would your local Consumer Reporter, or Investigative Team, say if, perhaps, someone said their new lawnmower was designed to quit working in 105 weeks? Or, their new microwave oven had a "timer" on it's tube, set to stop working in two more years? Or, their new car would require an engine swapout in early 2009?
That is a little extreme, isn't it? With the majority of people getting their broadcasts from 3rd parties(cable & sat), they won't lose anything. And, their 1990 TV's will still work just fine. Now, if these providers were also going to require an ATSC receiver in 741 days, that would be something. But they aren't.

And, I really don't buy the idea that the low income people will be hurt that much. From what I've seen, many of these people would spend money on cable & sat and a big TV, before they would spend money on food! They have their priorities!

And, HD must not be that big of a deal, the podunk cableco up here, doesn't offer even 1 HD channel!

Let'um sue! I wouldn't be surprised to see LCG backing them! :eek:
....jc

LCG Meeting: Let's see guys, $5,000,000 for another year at 6%...Yea, the delay is ok with me...

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5176383

Well at least we now know what PBS has been working on, since providing a quality HD line-up was obviously not a priority.

Gotta love that our PBS station has been looking for ways to divide its ATSC spectrum and cash in on the syndication opportunity.

This sucks.

This sucks.Wonder if they'd be willing to give my pledge back. First it was the Create channel, now this.

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5176383

Well at least we now know what PBS has been working on, since providing a quality HD line-up was obviously not a priority.

Gotta love that our PBS station has been looking for ways to divide its ATSC spectrum and cash in on the syndication opportunity.

This sucks.
Now, let me get this straight. This is an 'unusual public-private partnership', that's using at least some of our tax money for a foreign language TV station. Uh, huh. And, that all citizens of this country must be able to speak an acceptable level of English?

So who exactly is benefiting from this expenditure of tax dollars? Uh, huh.

Sigh...

So who exactly is benefiting from this expenditure of tax dollars?The employees of PBS stations, who get a new income stream. Viewers or taxpayers, not so much.

The employees of PBS stations, who get a new income stream. Viewers or taxpayers, not so much.
The Spanish-speaking taxpayers benefit

I wonder if the watered down KRMA HD will still be coming from the RP in a few years. That way they can save some more money. No point in going to Lookout or Mt. Morrison if you aren't going to provide HD anyway. I wonder when their next pledge drive starts?? Can't wait to send them some more money!
:mad:

That is a little extreme, isn't it? With the majority of people getting their broadcasts from 3rd parties(cable & sat), they won't lose anything ...
Tell that to the people out here in Iowa who almost lost the Super Bowl because Sinclair and Mediacom couldn't play nice.

See article in the CanyonCourier (http://www.canyoncourier.com/story_display.php?sid=4818)
There is also a short article on the Jeffco Web site.

Tell that to the people out here in Iowa who almost lost the Super Bowl because Sinclair and Mediacom couldn't play nice.
I didn't hear about that, but I guess that the keyword is almost. Corporations have gotten way too powerful, and a little money sprinkled around and the purchase of a few senators gets them far. Maybe, 'We The People' will get smart enough to end that crap. Our founding fathers thought that the states could 'manage' them(the corporations). It didn't work out that way. BTW, isn't there a Must Carry for cable?

But, you aren't likely to get much sympathy here in Colorado. Many people missed the Donky(Bronco) game on Thanksgiving due to the NFL Network, and their rise to power. They even broadcast the Senior Bowl(a college game), and many people also missed it.

'Free' is something that doesn't happen much anymore. If ya want something here(USA) you have to pay for it.
....jc

See article in the CanyonCourier (http://www.canyoncourier.com/story_display.php?sid=4818)
There is also a short article on the Jeffco Web site.
Wow. These people are way out there. I like this:
...president of CARE, told the board during public testimony that the federal legislation “has big enough holes in it to drive a truck through it,” and that the proposed settlement was a “very one-sided agreement” in favor of the developers.
Drive on dude, waste more money. Drive on.

And this:
...said high-tech companies being courted to the area by the Jefferson Economic Council might think twice about moving to the county if the tower site becomes overloaded with broadcast signals by multiple towers in the future.

“We have lost businesses in the Golden area because they couldn’t stand the radiation levels on their equipment,” he said. “If the radiation now increases, we will drive those people away.”http://www.panelcrafters.net/rotflmao.gifhttp://www.panelcrafters.net/rotflmao.gifhttp://www.panelcrafters.net/rotflmao.gifhttp://www.panelcrafters.net/rotflmao.gifhttp://www.panelcrafters.net/rotflmao.gifhttp://www.panelcrafters.net/rotflmao.gif

I wonder if everyone stands up a salutes at the end of the meetings.
....jc

Sounds like the meeting was even more hysterical than Ernie let on. Talk about "Denial"!
:eek:

“We have lost businesses in the Golden area because they couldn’t stand the radiation levels on their equipment,” he said. “If the radiation now increases, we will drive those people away.”
Rereading this, I thought hmmmm. How can you 'drive people away', that have already been lost?

Food for thought(or insects).
....jc

...Obviously the LCG is no longer required to donate their old properties to Jeffco...

Wouldn't it be fitting for LGC to offer to sell the property to Jeffco for the exact sum of their legal costs in fighting this mess? :rolleyes:

Between the tower battle, the internal fighting and the snow, JeffCo is broke.

Related: Did you read in the RMN today the new craziness going on with the Commissioners?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5337159,00.html

WOW!
Jim "fill in the blank"* Congrove

*Some possibilities:

"Paranoid-Schizophrenic"
"Delusional"
"Napolean"
"Screwed legally big-time"

Where exactly does this guy think he works, HP? The White House? ;)

Congrove must be a real "class act"!
:rolleyes:

It truly was a Circus there the other day. They all looked like Clowns. Between the 'Mob' mentality of the audience to the Commish's whispering to each other, to deciding on just throwing out the new deal and hurriedly coming up with the "Let's just go back to the old LCGII deal and be done with it", was completely unorganized. I do feel they were scared of the Mob of NIMBY's assembled. I was in the back of the room right next to the security guard. I think that was a wise move to have him there. This could have gotten real ugly, if they just accepted the LCG offer.

Oh another 'moment' at the hearing was when a NIMBY asked "where this agreement came from" and I think either a Commish or the lawyer said, "We've been in private negociations with LCG". The house just exploded.

BTW, isn't there a Must Carry for cable?Not so much anymore.

Since the 1992 cable act went into effect, stations have been allowed to choose between "must carry" or "retransmission consent." The latter allows stations to negotiate carriage terms with cable companies, similar to the way cable companies have to negotiate with cable/sat.-only networks. At the time, broadcasters envisioned getting paid for their signals in much the same way TNT, CNN, etc. get paid for their programming, but the cable industry was able to resist and broadcasters settled for deals which included some form of non-cash compensation.

That is changing. The sat companies, who need local stations in order to be taken seriously as a competitor to cable, ARE willing to pay for local stations' signals, and partly as a result the broadcasters are showing more of a willingness to ask for cash from cable operators as well. The Sinclair stations, including our CBS affiliate, were off Mediacom completely for nearly a month before a deal was reached. (The prevailing opinion on these boards is that Mediacom caved.)

It's not limited to Sinclair, either. CBS, which if I'm not mistaken owns KCNC, is expected to ask for cash when their deals come up. Hearst-Argyle Television pulled their HD signals from Cox Cable in late September and is still withholding them last I checked. And I understand there are others.

It's not limited to Sinclair, either. CBS, which if I'm not mistaken owns KCNC, is expected to ask for cash when their deals come up. Hearst-Argyle Television pulled their HD signals from Cox Cable in late September and is still withholding them last I checked. And I understand there are others.
Yea, when I was back in Omaroma(Omaha) during Thanksgiving, the ABC affiliate - KETV - was denying their HD signal to Omaha's Cox cable. It sounded like, gasp, that they wanted money for it, and Cox wouldn't pay. All of the other locals were on clear QAM.

Since I didn't have time to mess with installing an antenna, I was only able to watch ABC's football games in wonderful SD. :mad:
....jc

New story today in the Mile Hi News.

http://goldentranscript.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-02-08&-token.story=185841.112112&-token.subpub=

New story today in the Mile Hi News.

http://goldentranscript.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-02-08&-token.story=185841.112112&-token.subpub=

Steve Howards, also a member of the CARE steering committee, said his primary concern is radiation.

Martha Allbright agreed.


Yeup, it's all that "'nucular' radiation" that is going to kill everyone living on Lookout. From the sounds of it I would expect Steve and Martha to be the first people to put their homes up for sale....for their own safety of course.
:rolleyes:

New story today in the Mile Hi News.

http://goldentranscript.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-02-08&-token.story=185841.112112&-token.subpub=

Loved the line:
"Susan Marcus publicly gave a contribution of the requested $750 toward the tower fight." :rolleyes:

Perhaps she would like to contribute to the "Save the Lookout Mountain Jackalope" fund.

Loved the line:
"Susan Marcus publicly gave a contribution of the requested $750 toward the tower fight." :rolleyes:
..................
Another billable hour for Deb. Yeah!

Hi,

Im new to this thread but have a quick question...I am about to buy an HDTV and I live 1/2 block South of Sloans Lake....I wanted to get an indoor HD antenna and I was wondering if anyone had suggestions of which one to buy and knew if an indoor antenna would even work in that area........

Thanks for any advice you have to offer....

huckleberry

PS - Anyone have experience with this Philips TV - 32PF7421D/37??

Hi,

Im new to this thread but have a quick question...I am about to buy an HDTV and I live 1/2 block South of Sloans Lake....I wanted to get an indoor HD antenna and I was wondering if anyone had suggestions of which one to buy and knew if an indoor antenna would even work in that area........

Thanks for any advice you have to offer....

huckleberry

PS - Anyone have experience with this Philips TV - 32PF7421D/37??I would suggest the Zenith Silver Sensor (sometimes sold under the Gemini Brand) which I believe has a model number of ZHDTV1. It looks like a small airplane and can be found online for around $25. http://www.amazon.com/Philips-PHDTV1-Digital-HDTV-UHF-Antenna/dp/B0007XDI54/sr=8-1/qid=1171031711/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7092946-4209406?ie=UTF8&s=electronics
Alternatively, you can just pick up a small indoor antenna from Radio Shack - with the advantage that you can take it back if it doesn't work for you.

From you location you may end up having to fiddle with the orientation, since some of the DTV stations are east of you (Republic Plaza building in Denver) while others are west of you (Lookout Mountain in Golden).

This public meeting was nothing more than a silly, dog-and-pony show. Everyone except the naive public, knows JeffCo has no control anymore over the TV tower. None. President Bush's recent law completely over-rides JeffCo and Golden's authority in this matter. Even the Jeffco lawyers admitted the county has exhaustively researched their legal options to overturn this law, and they have no grounds. So, this entire meeting was a complete waste of time.

TV fan, Golden
OK, who (Ernie) is (Ernie) the (Ernie) culprit? I agree BTW :)

From the sounds of it I would expect Steve and Martha to be the first people to put their homes up for sale....for their own safety of course.
:rolleyes:
I already formally offered each of the homeowners $10K for their irradiated homes. No takers yet. Offer still open.

Anybody else notice how bad the lip sync was on Grey's Anatomy? It was annoying the wife so bad, she switched over to analog. :mad:

Anybody else notice how bad the lip sync was on Grey's Anatomy? It's was annoying the wife so bad, she switched over to analog. :mad:
They fixed it, but did you also notice the HD signal was "zoomed in", like it was 4x3?

From the article:
"We have lost businesses in the Golden area because they couldn’t stand the radiation levels on their equipment,” he said. “If the radiation now increases, we will drive those people away.”

Funny! The FCC has never had a complaint from anyone on Lookout Mountain.

That is a little extreme, isn't it? With the majority of people getting their broadcasts from 3rd parties(cable & sat), they won't lose anything. And, their 1990 TV's will still work just fine. Now, if these providers were also going to require an ATSC receiver in 741 days, that would be something. But they aren't.

And, I really don't buy the idea that the low income people will be hurt that much. From what I've seen, many of these people would spend money on cable & sat and a big TV, before they would spend money on food! They have their priorities!

And, HD must not be that big of a deal, the podunk cableco up here, doesn't offer even 1 HD channel!

Let'um sue! I wouldn't be surprised to see LCG backing them! :eek:
....jc



Hey, here in our DMA (all of Utah), 25% of the homes rely on OTA, 25% on satellite, and 50% on Cable. Of those, I'd say there are plenty of people in condos, apartments, retirement homes, and low-income housing who use "bulk account" basic analog Cable. And, when Cable goes all-digital, how many of those people will be able to afford the upgrade to Digital Cable and the monthly STB rental fees. Or, if we can keep all the locals in Clear QAM mode, how many will rush out and buy new HDTV sets (remember, most smaller SDTV sets don't have the QAM option)?

These residents and even the officials just spew crap. If you were to ask them to prove it, "OK, show me one letter from a business that decided not to locate in Golden", they couldn't do it. It's all rhetoric. If fact, there might be more letters to Golden condeming them for not moving into the 21 century by obstructing the roll-out of DTV to their big-dollar, tech-savy young engineers!

Also, I wanted so bad to get up there at the meeting and say "OK, Mr. Golden mayor, why are you condeming the consolidation tower due to your claim that the RF radiation increase is like a Nuclear bomb, but then, you're all gun-ho to install dozens or hundreds of dangerous, high-powered RF Wi-Fi transmitters all over the city of Golden... Right in their backyards?

Hey, here in our DMA (all of Utah), 25% of the homes rely on OTA, 25% on satellite, and 50% on Cable. Of those, I'd say there are plenty of people in condos, apartments, retirement homes, and low-income housing who use "bulk account" basic analog Cable. And, when Cable goes all-digital, how many of those people will be able to afford the upgrade to Digital Cable and the monthly STB rental fees. Or, if we can keep all the locals in Clear QAM mode, how many will rush out and buy new HDTV sets (remember, most smaller SDTV sets don't have the QAM option)?

I appreciate what you're saying but you know the requirement is for DIGITAL TV, not HDTV. And I have SEEN SDTV's with all 3 tuners - ATSC, NTSC and QAM - in Walmart in 27 inch and larger TVs. And these TVs were available for less than $300.

Sure going to HDTV right now is going to cost "a bit more" than these SDTV's - but it IS an option. At least they can still get TV.
Edit:
And the ATSC / QAM tuners will be moving down the size scale shortly. I'd say by next January you won't be able to buy a TV without ATSC at least, and probably QAM tuners builtin. - Or they will be "firesale" TV s to clear out the warehouses.

They fixed it, but did you also notice the HD signal was "zoomed in", like it was 4x3?

I wasn't really watching it. I came into the room and saw she was watching the analog station and she told me why.

Hey all,

Anyone been watching Heroes OTA? I'm a Comcast subscriber and the broadcasts have been in 2.0 sound. I'm trying to pinpoint if the problem is with KUSA or Comcast. Other KUSA broadcasts are in properly in 5.1 sound (like the NHL on NBC game on now).

I watch Heroes OTA, it is always in DD stereo. So is everything else KUSA broadcasts in primetime (except Sunday Night Football)!!

Last I heard, KUSA has problems with any time shifted, meaning recorded by them and played back at a later time for broadcast, material in 5.1. They seem to be able to do real time "Live" events just fine. To "pinpoint" the problem, call KUSA engineering and ask them why they are having this problem, and why for a very long time now, they have not been able to get their act together on this??

Phil P.

I watch Heroes OTA, it is always in DD stereo. So is everything else KUSA broadcasts in primetime (except Sunday Night Football)!!

Last I heard, KUSA has problems with any time shifted, meaning recorded by them and played back at a later time for broadcast, material in 5.1. They seem to be able to do real time "Live" events just fine. To "pinpoint" the problem, call KUSA engineering and ask them why they are having this problem, and why for a very long time now, they have not been able to get their act together on this??

Phil P.

Okay, thanks. I don't watch any NBC primetime shows but Heroes, but I did notice the Sunday Night Football and the NHL games are 5.1. That explains it. I'll see what I can do about complaining, but if it's gone on this long I doubt I'll get anywhere.

The Judge Jackson hearing is set for today. I will be travelling today, is anyone planning on going? I'll look forward to hearing the results later.

GO LCG !!!

Update:

I just called the court clerk and they do not have anything set for today. JJ is actually in a Jury trial today. So, I'm assuming JJ's decision will be a written one and not an open to the public hearing. Wabisabi, you got any inside info on this?

So, I'm assuming JJ's decision will be a written one and not an open to the public hearing.
Guess this makes sense. The last two were conducted this way.

Well, is the consensus that JJ will drop the injunction and clear the way for construction to start??? Any bets?

Personally I am not sure just what he will do. The logical thing, as I see it, would be to drop all objections and simply clear the way for the LCG to start work. But, as we all know, judges do not always do what seems apparent to the rest of us.

How and when do they release written decisions? I could not find anything on the Jeffco website or the 1st District court site.

The logical thing, as I see it, would be to drop all objections and simply clear the way for the LCG to start work.
I agree and here is why. In May 2006 JJ remanded the issue back to the BCC for further consideration and to proceed with due speed (didn't happen). Earlier this week they voted 2 to 1 to schedule a hearing for March 12th. The no vote was Congrove.

While Commissioner Kevin McCasky called that plan an “excellent compromise,” Congrove opposed the action, saying he wanted more time to make sure the original plan “does everything we would like it to do.”
What has this guy been doing for the last 8 months. Give me a break.
If I was the judge I would just flat tell them you failed to get your act together therefore injunction dropped.
There is no reason what so ever why LCG should stick to their original proposal.
Let the four towers stand until they rust away. In fact maybe the mountain needs a few more towers. Now let em beg who cares.

The Judge Jackson hearing is set for today. I will be travelling today, is anyone planning on going? I'll look forward to hearing the results later.

GO LCG !!!

Update:

I just called the court clerk and they do not have anything set for today. JJ is actually in a Jury trial today. So, I'm assuming JJ's decision will be a written one and not an open to the public hearing. Wabisabi, you got any inside info on this?

There is no hearing today. Today is just the day that Jeffco must file their response to LCG's petition to drop the case. Then, LCG will have some time to file a response to Jeffco's response. After that, then JJ can hold a hearing, or issue a decision.

-Wabisabi

Earlier this week they voted 2 to 1 to schedule a hearing for March 12th. The no vote was Congrove.

The March 12th BCC hearing date was already set. Congrove voted no to the motion to reply to LCG's offer with the language from the LCG rezoning. He did not vote no to have a hearing on the 12th.

Wabisabi

The March 12th BCC hearing date was already set. Congrove voted no to the motion to reply to LCG's offer with the language from the LCG rezoning. He did not vote no to have a hearing on the 12th.

Wabisabi
Ok. Thanks. Misunderstood.

See article in the CanyonCourier (http://www.canyoncourier.com/story_display.php?sid=4818)

I couldn't listen to that rubbish... I had to post a reply.

"I don't mean to give an unwanted civics lession, but sometimes the government has to do whats appropriate for the greater good than what is in the interest of the individual. Frankly, this debate is over. It should have been over as soon as the bill in question was signed by the President. Our Senators and Representatives, whom we elected to speak for us and do the best thing for the common good, could see that the function of givernment, i.e. the FCC, is being impeeded to the point of stagnation. Local government has no call to render the Federal government impotent. State rights are constitutionally protected, but this is not a State issue. This is a matter of Federal concern. Additionally, I just love how the Mayor of Golden is still so misinformed as to actually believe that RF levels will increase. Why can't people understand that after the digital transition, RF levels will be lower than current. If RF is such a major concern, why not go after the FM stations, who are responsible for approximately 95% of RF emissions from Lookout? Jump right on that bandwagon, everyone! TV is evil! "

Gakon,

Could you (if you still are here) do a LOS map to RP and LOM from Erie, CO

I may be moving there soon.

(Cut and paste from another map website:)

40.03040763006804, -105.0715684890747

Thanks a lot!

# Matt

There is no hearing today. Today is just the day that Jeffco must file their response to LCG's petition to drop the case. Then, LCG will have some time to file a response to Jeffco's response. After that, then JJ can hold a hearing, or issue a decision.

-Wabisabi
For me the interesting thing about this case is that LCG and JeffCo BCC are co-defendants in the action. As such, a defendant cannot reasonably ask that the action against them not be dismissed. That would, in essence, be arguing against their own best interests. City of Golden and (s)CARE (the plaintiffs) have already filed their motions.

OK, I'm confused. From the recent posts, it looks like JeffCo must file a brief to JJ to respond to LCG's request to dismiss the injunction, then LCG files comments with JJ on JeffCo's response, then there might be a hearing or a written opinion issued.

As I previously understood this "issue", Golden/sCARE got their injunction. JJ sent the latest issue back (tower falling) to the BCC for prompt consideration (which didn't happen), then the Midnight Law was enacted, LCG then filed for dismissal of the injunction and Golden/sCARE filed their brief/response.

IMO, a law was passed that negated the injunction or any other action contemplated by any local authority. I don't see, as I've posted before, why anyone has to screw around with this court action any longer. JJ can issue whatever direction/order he wants, and Golden/sCARE can file as many court actions as they want. They will have no effect under the Midnight Law. If I were LCG, all I'd want to do is have the case closed (for nothing more than a "good feeling") and I wouldn't waste any more time with JJ, Golden, or sCARE.

So, unless I'm being too simplistic about this situation, could someone please explain where my thinking may be awry?

.........IMO, a law was passed that negated the injunction or any other action contemplated by any local authority. I don't see, as I've posted before, why anyone has to screw around with this court action any longer. JJ can issue whatever direction/order he wants, and Golden/sCARE can file as many court actions as they want. They will have no effect under the Midnight Law. ...........
I am not sure but I suspect that is exactly what the LCG response likely said, maybe in somewhat more 'legal terms' though.
:)

IMO, a law was passed that negated the injunction or any other action contemplated by any local authority. I don't see, as I've posted before, why anyone has to screw around with this court action any longer. JJ can issue whatever direction/order he wants, and Golden/sCARE can file as many court actions as they want. They will have no effect under the Midnight Law. If I were LCG, all I'd want to do is have the case closed (for nothing more than a "good feeling") and I wouldn't waste any more time with JJ, Golden, or sCARE.

So, unless I'm being too simplistic about this situation, could someone please explain where my thinking may be awry?

The entire thing is largely a degree of legal "cleanup". Here are some key points from LCG's petition:

From the Introduction:
Given the preemptive effect of the Act, this Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Rule 106(a)(4). Moreover, the Act renders this case moot, which strips Plaintiffs of standing to maintain it. The Court, therefore, should dismiss this case and lift the stay entered on March 26, 2004.

From Section III:
To be clear, Lake Cedar files this motion to dismiss to put an end to litigation in which it is a named defendant, and which is no longer relevant to the underlying issue of tower construction. However, based on the terms of the stay order and the preemptive force of the federal Act, the dismissal of this suit is not a condition precedent to Lake Cedar’s exercise of its federal rights. Moreover, this Court’s stay can not be expanded to reach Lake Cedar’s construction activities without running afoul of the jurisdictional and preemption problems identified below, and without violating Lake Cedar’s rights under the Act.

From Section V-D:
As explained above, the Court’s stay order operates only on the County and does not, and could not, preclude Lake Cedar from exercising its independent federal right to construct the proposed tower. As a matter of judicial administration, however, we note that a dismissal of this case also requires the Court to vacate the stay, regardless of its limited effect.

It's really a thing of beauty, LCG's petition that is, and I encourage anyone interested to read up: http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/LCG%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%201-06.pdf

IANAL, but I do get cheap thrills reading legal briefs and court decisions (maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment). The LCG brief is a great read.

I find it ironic that sCARE would post such on their website -- maybe they secretly understand the genius behind it!

I still think milehighmike described it in more understandable language......
I don't see, as I've posted before, why anyone has to screw around with this court action any longer. JJ can issue whatever direction/order he wants, and Golden/sCARE can file as many court actions as they want. They will have no effect under the Midnight Law.
That makes sense to everyone, and takes a lot less words.

skyburn, thanks for the cite for the LCG brief. It validates my thoughts on this.

The brief states that the construction of the tower (and all future towers, I presume) is under Federal jurisdiction, the FCC. That indicates that JeffCo has no authority to apply its tower set back rules/guidelines/requirements, etc. Taking that a step further, JeffCo may have no authority over this construction whatsoever, including applying local building code requirements, etc. Just my take on the matter.

I wonder what's going to happen to the $750 that lady contributed at the BOCC meeting last week?

Have any of the Denver TV stations done a really in-depth story on the latest in this saga?

Maybe, show some fancy graphics of what the current antenna radiation patterns are, compared to what they will be "as soon as we get this stuff done? And, maybe tell people what the consequenses are if this doesn't get finished in two years and four more days?

Not really. They have done some TV spots with animated graphics showing the before and after. Remember, its only a handful of people who are obstructing the tower and causing this mess. It's starting to get more widespread as 'real' people are getting HDTV's and finding out they can't get OTA DTV.

Interesting but fluffy article on rabbit ears and HDTV:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17080800/site/newsweek/

-Glen

Gakon,

Could you (if you still are here) do a LOS map to RP and LOM from Erie, CO

# Matt

I'm still here. If you move, you would be close to a couple of other folks in that area for whom I've done profiles. I used abbreviations for their screen names, so I'm not sure who they are any more (without looking through a few pages of posts). Anyway, RP isn't so good (Thornton is in the way), LOM is fine (you'd be far enough away from Table Mountain).

I'm still here. If you move, you would be close to a couple of other folks in that area for whom I've done profiles. I used abbreviations for their screen names, so I'm not sure who they are any more (without looking through a few pages of posts). Anyway, RP isn't so good (Thornton is in the way), LOM is fine (you'd be far enough away from Table Mountain).

Thanks!

So I am no better off, or worse off in the immediate future. (I can only see LOM from Longmont anyways).

# Matt

Not really. They have done some TV spots with animated graphics showing the before and after. Remember, its only a handful of people who are obstructing the tower and causing this mess. It's starting to get more widespread as 'real' people are getting HDTV's and finding out they can't get OTA DTV.Of course there are also the animations at the HDTV Colorado (http://www.hdtvcolorado.com/) web site.

New info on the sCARE website.

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

New info on the sCARE website.

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

"The Act"? I'm fairly certain its "The Federal Law". Talk about denial...

If I read it correctly, it looks as though JJ once again remanded this back to JeffCo for yet another hearing next month. I thought this was a done deal? Can someone explain please?

Finally, they mentioned that LCG has not shown that they hold the FCC construction permit but posts here have linked to the fact that they do. Anyone have a concrete answer?

The "open letter" on there is a hoot. What I don't like about it is that they argue with what LCG has done from multiple perspectives (we don't want LCG on Lookout, here's what we want if LCG builds a new tower on Lookout, etc.). It comes across to me as very whiny and unfocused because all they do is complain about everything LCG has done and present it in a manner that suits C.A.R.E.'s purpose.

The part about trust riles me too. Sure LCG included a bunch of provisions in their proposal like open space, removal of existing towers, etc. but it was part of their proposal that was rejected by C.A.R.E. Now that their proposal is off the table, why call them liars for not keeping to it? I'd still like to see LCG remove the old towers and try to make the new construction as aesthetically pleasing as possible, but I'm not going to question their trustworthiness if they don't. As for giving away land and paying for RF testing, I would never do that now if I were LCG.

The Official Development Plan adopted by the County in 2003, for instance, allows the tower and digital antennas desired by Lake Cedar. It also places reasonable restrictions on the property, all of which were previously agreed to by Lake Cedar. Such restrictions include provisions regarding building design and coloring, landscaping, access, and parking. These or similar regulations can be imposed by the County in order to assure the health, safety and welfare of citizens while still giving the Act its full intended effect.

Okay, what effect exactly does the "building design and coloring, landscaping, access, and parking" have on the "health, safety and welfare of citizens"?

Only one possible answer here = NONE! Agree? Come on (s)CARE, are you trying to tell me that a camoflaged building will have less effect on your "health, safety & well being" than one painted in the FAA "red & white square" safety pattern? If anything this would improve your health & safety, no?

Perhaps Don Quixote is now running (s)CARE but has switched from windmills to towers.

"The Act"? I'm fairly certain its "The Federal Law". Talk about denial..."Act" (as in Act of Congress) is pretty standard terminology for referring to a law once is has been passed and signed. sCARE is in denial about many things, but this isn't one of them.

Finally, they mentioned that LCG has not shown that they hold the FCC construction permit but posts here have linked to the fact that they do. Anyone have a concrete answer?
I don't see an active one out there for KCNC, KUSA or KMGH. These things are only valid for a year, but can be extended. My guess is that they just decided to wait until things had been resolved instead of trying to keep extending one.

sCARE is not dead. I can see them trying what ever they can to delay the process. They are like a hemroid that won't go away.
....jc

I agree with weldon. I just read the "open letter to LCG" on the (s)CARE site, what a farce!

(s)CARE did everything in their power, many things less than ethical, to shoot down the 2003 LCG proposal. Now that S.4092 is law they realize how badly they completely screwed themselves and they want it back?

IMOHO, LCG bent over backwards by offering an extremely neighbor-friendly proposal at significant additional cost yet (s)CARE along with the city of Golden, etc., fought it tooth and nail as being entirely unacceptable. It took an "Act" :o of the Federal Gov't to effectively block the greedy and deceitful actions of (s)CARE. Now suddenly they are in love with the 2003 proposal (well, it is Valentines Day I guess :rolleyes: ) ??? Come on!

Perhaps we should all collaborate on an "Open Letter to (s)CARE from the citizens of Denver, JeffCo and surrounding communities" to refute their claims and admonish them for their actions. Anyone happen to have access to the (s)CARE mailing list? That would be a fun letter to send to all of their members. :D Perhaps even include a number of quotes from Deb, Al et. al. from their site, testimony and filings as to how unacceptable they once found LCG 2003.

To me it is like a child who refuses to eat a carefully prepared, healthy meal only to see it removed from the table leaving them nothing. Suddenly they LOVE brocoli!

They are like a hemroid that won't go away.
....jc
And the only thing you can do with such a hemroid is a "surgical operation". Watch for black helicopters over Golden :D

IMOHO, LCG bent over backwards by offering an extremely neighbor-friendly proposal at significant additional cost yet (s)CARE along with the city of Golden, etc., fought it tooth and nail as being entirely unacceptable. It took an "Act" :o of the Federal Gov't to effectively block the greedy and deceitful actions of (s)CARE. Now suddenly they are in love with the 2003 proposal (well, it is Valentines Day I guess :rolleyes: ) ??? Come on!

I assume you talking about the BOCC. We all know this proposal is still unacceptable by sCARE and the COG.
C.A.R.E. is requesting as many attend this meeting as possible.

I am sure they won't be there to say why the BOCC should accept the original proposal. Just the opposite. Deny it once again. They still haven't excepted the fact they have lost. LCG has no reason to be there as they have nothing to defend. My guess is they won't be unless there is a legal reason for being there.
We will hear exactly the same thing we have heard at the previous three meetings. Extreme RF, tower failure, health, ETC, ETC.
After hearing all this negative testimony there would be no reason why the BOCC should now accept it as they didn't like it before. Now maybe on the other hand they do in fact realize exactly what's at stake.
Can you imagine the gallery response if after hearing all the negative testimony the BOCC votes to except a proposal that really isn't on the table anymore.
To me this meeting is just a waste of time. There nothing new or different to present relative to the initial proposal. Just vote and get it over with.
I may even go. I need another dose of radiation.

Seems to me like it is time for LCG to go to federal court and ask them to void Judge Jackson's injunction. I can't see much point in waiting til March for another round of the BOCC circus, then yet another trip to see JJ? If he wasn't willing to grant a dismissal yesterday, I don't see what's likely to change that in the future - he has gone out of his way to prolong this case at every step.

I thought that this time around they were only to address the falling tower chain reaction issue. Are we sure JJ just sent it back to the BOCC, that was already done. Does this mean he denied the motion to lift the injunction/stay? Am I missing something here?

Phil P.

Gakon,

Could you (if you still are here) do a LOS map to RP and LOM from Erie, CO

I may be moving there soon.

(Cut and paste from another map website:)

40.03040763006804, -105.0715684890747

Thanks a lot!

# Matt

matt, Being too lazy to look up the coordinates, I'll just ask where in Erie are you looking?

I'm in Lafayette between hwy 42 and 287, just north of Arapahoe. I get most everything marginally using an RS double bow tie in my living room pointed at RP. I had a friend at 119 and Isabelle who ended up getting Comcast because things were getting a little difficult (but I don't know how hard he really worked at it).

My guess is a good UHF or Combo mounted outside would get you everything relatively easily (key word being relative).

I assume you talking about the BOCC. We all know this proposal is still unacceptable by sCARE and the COG.
Actually, if you read the "open letter" from (s)CARE Tower Steering Committee (which (s)CARE refers to as the "T.H.R.E.A.T. Steering Committee"), they are addressing items specific to LCG 2003 and calling them liars for now removing the "neighbor-friendly" provisions from the last proposal. I got the distinct impression that (s)CARE would now possibly back a proposal that contains those items.

I was unable to capture the text from the letter, but look at the bulleted list on the third page of the documnet located HERE (http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/OpenLetter.pdf) and let me know if you agree.

Actually, if you read the "open letter" from (s)CARE Tower Steering Committee (which (s)CARE refers to as the "T.H.R.E.A.T. Steering Committee"), they are addressing items specific to LCG 2003 and calling them liars for now removing the "neighbor-friendly" provisions from the last proposal. I got the distinct impression that (s)CARE would now possibly back a proposal that contains those items.

I was unable to capture the text from the letter, but look at the bulleted list on the third page of the documnet located HERE (http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/OpenLetter.pdf) and let me know if you agree.
Sorry Jetlag. I did not previously read this letter you are right. This response was after Washington got involved. Their goal was to get LCG to stick with their original proposal which LCG was not willing to do so. Right or wrong who is to say. We will find out if some or any of them continue to feel this way come March 12th. After all this meeting is to address the original proposal.
It still wouldn't surprise me to see them negotiate and come up with an agreement that is acceptable to both parties.

Actually, if you read the "open letter" from (s)CARE Tower Steering Committee (which (s)CARE refers to as the "T.H.R.E.A.T. Steering Committee"), they are addressing items specific to LCG 2003 and calling them liars for now removing the "neighbor-friendly" provisions from the last proposal. I got the distinct impression that (s)CARE would now possibly back a proposal that contains those items.
Yea, the buzzer has sounded, and game over. But sCARE is still acting like the game is still on. So, they start calling LCG untruthful because the new law doesn't state that there must be tower consolidation or open space and a bunch of other petty things. And, LCG has no obligation to them now. This is so easy. No agreement was reached! But, since they got trumped(badly), they seem to think that LCG should honor a proposal that was never finalized.

In Jetlag parlance, it looks like their Airbus just taxied away, and they are still standing in the jetway.
....jc

Seems to me like it is time for LCG to go to federal court and ask them to void Judge Jackson's injunction. I can't see much point in waiting til March for another round of the BOCC circus, then yet another trip to see JJ? If he wasn't willing to grant a dismissal yesterday, I don't see what's likely to change that in the future - he has gone out of his way to prolong this case at every step.
I suspect that is exactly what the LCG will do, but in order to argue the case in front of a Federal Court I think they would have to wait to see if JJ would simply drop the injunction and let them start. It would not make 'legal' sense to appeal an override to a decision that hasn't been announced unless the delay becomes months instead of weeks. It would take them months to prepare and argue a case in a Federal Court when there may soon be no need to do so.

I suspect that is exactly what the LCG will do, but in order to argue the case in front of a Federal Court I think they would have to wait to see if JJ would simply drop the injunction and let them start.Isn't that what JJ had the opportunity to do yesterday, but he punted instead? If he has remanded the dismissal request back to Jeffco again, then he is still operating under the assumption they have some jursidiction in the matter. I don't see any reason for LCG to wait on challenging that assumption.

Isn't that what JJ had the opportunity to do yesterdayI'm traveling, what did I miss? Did JJ make a decision Tuesday? I thought Monday was just the dead-line for the opponents to submit whatever BS they would submit?

Did he hand down a decision to throw it back to the Commish's? (If he did, I don't think they have any say anymore)

If I read it correctly, it looks as though JJ once again remanded this back to JeffCo for yet another hearing next month.Ernie, it was this comment from jetlag that made me think JJ had sent it back - maybe I misinterpreted it? I haven't seen a link to any actual ruling.

Whew! I didn't think he'd make any ruling that quick. (Not with his track-record on past decisions). I'm sure I would have heard something this important from Pete, Marv and the boys.

From the sCARE website:

Public Hearing Scheduled for Monday, 3/12/07 at 9:15 a.m.
A public hearing on the issue remanded by the District Court to the County Commissioners has been scheduled.
What issue specifically are they speaking of here? I assumed from this that something new had come from JJ. I don't recall any other issues that had been remanded back to the Board.

What issue specifically are they speaking of here? I assumed from this that something new had come from JJ. I don't recall any other issues that had been remanded back to the Board.
BCC has now, finally scheduled the hearing/vote that Judge Jackson ordered them to do last May, in "all due haste". There was no new action from the judge. I think Jeffco was just begging him not to rule before they had their next dog and pony show. Well, ten months as "all due haste" would get me fired from my job. If I were the judge I would find them in contempt of court, and fine them in addition to lifting the injunction. But then, if I were judge this would have been over a long time ago...

Oh yeah, that one. It's been so long I must have forgotten....... Maybe I should have chosen the standard cold medicine instead of the maximum strength.

Well, per the directive of JJ the new board members must vote considering only the facts of the case as presented in formal testimony. We all know that at least 2 of the board members are completely devoid of objectivity. Once again the Ringling Brothers, Barnum & Bailey will be appearing at the Taj on 3/12. I am predicting (anticipating actually) a 2 to 1 negative vote. Maybe even a few more "fill-in-the-blank" comments from "secret agent" Congrove, spy at large.

So then what, this once again heads to JJ to gather dust on his desk for months on end? Does he have to rule on this prior to possibly dismissing it based upon LCGs motion to dismiss?

Makes my head hurt, time for more medicine!

The BOCC response was submitted on Feb 12, 2007, so I would think JJ has to allow himself some 'reasonable' amount of time to read and then respond to Jeffco and to allow the injunction to be lifted. It looks to me like the ball is now in his court, and it would seem (to me of course) that it should be a slam dunk that he will lift the injunction after his review. Who knows how long that will take in 'legal' days?

Edited response from 'Jeffco' to 'BOCC'

The Jeffco response was submitted on Feb 12, 2007, so I would think JJ has to allow himself some 'reasonable' amount of time to read and then respond to Jeffco and to allow the injunction to be lifted. It looks to me like the ball is now in his court, and it would seem (to me of course) that it should be a slam dunk that he will lift the injunction after his review. Who knows how long that will take in 'legal' days?
Oops, you posted before I found the info I was looking for.

Since LCG has filed the motion to dismiss and lift the stay on Lookout and JeffCo has submitted their response as you pointed out, I'm a bit mystified as to the sudden scheduling of this next hearing.

Although JJ has not rescinded his "due haste" order for a vote by the new commisioners, what exactly would that accomplish now? Is this meeting simply to complete the vote in a attempt to win brownie points from JJ for finally complying with his last order? To me it seems everything hinges on the potential dismissal. But, since only one thing has gone our way (thank you S.4092), I would not be suprised to see JJ rule in favor of JeffCo. If that were to occur, I would assume that LCG would then most likely successfully appeal to the next higher court making the upcoming vote moot anyways.

Are there any other things that the BOCC can do on 3/12 other than an up/down vote per JJ's ruling? Or will it be an attempt at face-saving in front of their constituents and be of no relevance whatsoever?

Here is a pointer (http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/Order%20of%203rd%20Remand.pdf) to the last remand as ordered by JJ.
I really like this line. "The three gentlemen who occupy those
seats today are charged with the authority and responsibility to make the decision."

Although JJ has not rescinded his "due haste" order for a vote by the new commisioners, what exactly would that accomplish now? Is this meeting simply to complete the vote in a attempt to win brownie points from JJ for finally complying with his last order? To me it seems everything hinges on the potential dismissal. But, since only one thing has gone our way (thank you S.4092), I would not be suprised to see JJ rule in favor of JeffCo. If that were to occur, I would assume that LCG would then most likely successfully appeal to the next higher court making the upcoming vote moot anyways.

If there is no ruling from the District Court and BCC votes yes on the rezoning, then JJ will most likely accept that ruling, lift the injunction, and Deb will have forty-five days to file a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals (COA) in Denver. If BCC votes no on the rezoning, then JJ may accept that ruling and make the injunction permanent. In that case LCG will file a new case in US Federal District Court in Denver, to preserve their "federal rights" under "the Act". If JJ so choses before or after a vote in March, he could rule the entire case moot, lift the injunction, and dismiss the case. I believe in that case Deb would have the same forty-five days to file with the COA, but then there would be no District Court injunction in place. If it plays out that way then I would advise LCG to start building, and least the outhouse or something.

The only reason the ball's in JJ's court (pun intended) is the silly, tower-fall issue, period. All this submittle of sCARE and BOCC's 'new' BS is not applicable in any way. JJ cannot by law accept any of this. It is new and not part the reason this is in front of him.

He has to vote 'game over'. I cannot see any way possible he will start this all over with new evidence.

I enjoy reading everyone's thoughts regarding the JJ/injunction issue. But I think we read too much into some of this sometimes. I think it's time to get back to basics with a little review of the issue.

The prior BOCC approved the LCG rezoning request. Golden and sCARE (plaintiffs) took them (BOCC and LCG, defendants) to court, JJ's court. After a couple of hearings and JJ written opinions over a long period of time, JJ issued his last "finding" (for lack of a better term) in May 2006 that stated that all of the points raised by the plaintiffs had no merit, that it was up to the BOCC to re-vote on the zoning request, and that vote should be based on facts and done in due haste.

When the BOCC decided to just procrastinate and basically ignore JJ, the Midnight Law (S. 4092) was passed. What did this do? It took Golden, sCARE, and the BOCC out of any decision making process/ability/jurisdiction over the construction of any digital TV tower and related facilities on Lookout Mountain.

The KEY POINT here is that the injunction JJ granted stopped the approval of LCG's rezoning request made by the prior BOCC. The Midnight Law took the rezoning issue away from any local control, or, to put it another way, automatically lifted the injuction. JJ's injunction is moot and all LCG is trying to do in their latest filing of a brief is to "clean up" the matter. Golden, sCARE, and the BOCC, as LCG's brief clearly advocates, no longer have an interest in this matter since any interest they may have had was precluded by the Midnight Law. End of Story.

I read the JeffCo/BOCC brief from the sCARE web page. What a joke! Remember, folks, JeffCo/BOCC is a defendant in the action before JJ with the same standing as LCG. Reading their brief, it sounds like they should have instead just filed a short statement something along the lines of:

"We bad. We want you to uphold the injunction and make it permanent. And, by the way, please change us from a defendant to a plaintiff. Thanks."

While I'm not a lawyer, I've read enough legal documents, etc. in my line of work to have a good idea when a legal brief/argument has little or no substance and is filed/made just to save face. The clue that this exists in the BOCC filing is their argument that the TV stations don't currently have a permit to build a digital TV station. No one in their right mind would raise such a silly argument that, even if technically true, is remedied so easily there is no point in considering it. The other clue is their attempt to argue points not relevant to the issue at hand. The brief covers items/issues considered resolved by JJ such as safety, health and then the brief goes futher by raising issues unrelated to zoning, such as the color of the buildings. The injunction covers a rezoning request, not building code regulations.

IMO, JJ has no choice in this matter since he doesn't have any jurisdiction over the plaintiffs or the defendants any longer due to the Midnight Law. He may not want to follow the law, but as a judge, I think we all expect him to.

As for the BOCC meeting in March, IMO this is nothing more than a save face attempt by the BOCC (i.e. farce) so that something involving this issue, at least in their feeble minds, won't come back to haunt them the next time they're up for election. Again, the BOCC can do whatever they want at this meeting, including ranting, raving, voting down the LCG proposal, or accepting the LCG proposal, or presenting a new proposal. Whatever they do will have no legal effect nor obligate any response from LCG because of the Midnight Law.

Sorry this post is so long. I guess I couldn't say what I wanted to express in fewer words.

I guess I did not miss anything. We are still waiting to see what JJ does with the motion to dismiss and lift the injunction.

Phil P.

IMO, JJ has no choice in this matter since he doesn't have any jurisdiction over the plaintiffs or the defendants any longer due to the Midnight Law.
I agree. It looks like they are trying to establish their right to maintain zoning control. They listed several different prior cases as support. Fine. They can zone it as a Hospital, Parking Lot or a Zoo. Whatever, none of that(and they stated such) will stop the tower construction.

Their most powerful statement is that w/o the FCC permit no tower can be built. Wow, their insight is amazing. That was their claim to fame. But it's just to pacify the ignorant. They can do nothing to stop the FCC from issuing a permit in the future, or issue multiple permits in the future.

The way I read everything, it doesn't really matter what JJ does. The tower goes up. What needs to be seen, is what efforts they use to try and delay the start of construction.

Deb, you go girl, get those last billable hours in there!
....jc

The only reason the ball's in JJ's court (pun intended) is the silly, tower-fall issue, period. All this submittle of sCARE and BOCC's 'new' BS is not applicable in any way. JJ cannot by law accept any of this. It is new and not part the reason this is in front of him.

He has to vote 'game over'. I cannot see any way possible he will start this all over with new evidence.
I agree 100%. I do think he has to at least show 'due diligence" or whatever the lawyers call it, though, by taking a few days ??? to seriously consider the BOCC response before he rules. That would make it harder for anyone to appeal on the grounds that their opinion was not heard. I would hope he will rule in a few days instead of waiting until the March meeting.

As for the BOCC meeting in March, IMO this is nothing more than a save face attempt by the BOCC (i.e. farce) so that something involving this issue, at least in their feeble minds, won't come back to haunt them the next time they're up for election. Again, the BOCC can do whatever they want at this meeting, including ranting, raving, voting down the LCG proposal, or accepting the LCG proposal, or presenting a new proposal. Whatever they do will have no legal effect nor obligate any response from LCG because of the Midnight Law.
Sorry to paraphrase you, but this is exactly what I was thinking. If I recall from JJ's instructions per the vote, they have to decide based on existing facts and I don't think new testimony is even allowed. Since LCG blew the tower fall issue out of the water via their experts the only reasonable vote is to approve. Of course, who ever said Congrove & Co would vote based on facts &/or reason?

So why is sCARE trying to "rally the troops" for this meeting? A vote up or down means nothing now as LCG can build whatever they want as long as it is shorter than the tallest current tower. Color, landscaping, parking, open space, etc are no longer part of the equation.

To put it all into a Valentines day perspective, sCARE & BOCC were on the Dating Game and chose bachelorette #3 despite their buddy in the audience (us) repeatedly yelling "choose #2" . Before they met #3 they got to watch the smokin' hot bachelorette #2 walk right past and out the door. Now that they met Ms. "esthetically challenged" #3, they are trying desperately to change their choice to #2. To late, time to blow a kiss and wave goodbye.

Man this is great cold medicine! ;)

Excellent post milehighmike I think you said it quite well.

One thing though.

Until JeffCo recognizes that the zoning issue is over they probably won't issue any building permit(s). I think it would be very safe to assume that if LCG started building without the appropriate permits then a suit would be filed, and ultimately an injunction imposed, to force them to stop construction until they get the necessary permits. Why? Personally I don't think S.4092 gives them free reign to build without building permits and I'd bet JeffCo would argue that as well. We know from the emergency BOCC meeting last week that LCG's stance is they do not need a building permit. This could become a protracted court battle (with an injunction in place) until the issue is decided. IMO, what needs to happen is that one way or another it is LCG's best interests to have JeffCo recognize that the zoning issue is over and to issue building permits.

I do believe what we're seeing now is posturing on both sides for building permit(s). LCG's proposal last week would have given them carte blanc if accepted but I don't think LCG thought it would be accepted. I think they wanted to establish their initial take on it and get all the leverage they could before JeffCo came out with their own set of "demands". I do believe LCG will will concede some points of contention in order to get JeffCo to issue building permit(s). The bottom line is that I think it is LCG's best interest to get JeffCo willing to issue building permit(s) and I think that is what the March BOCC meeting is all about. I'd expect the BOCC will listen to public input at to where to draw the line on issuing permits which is why SCARE is rallying the troops. In my mind a positive outcome in the March BOCC meeting is important to allow LCG construction to commence without further legal wrangling. So I guess I argue that the March BOCC meeting is much more than a Dog and Pony show.

I agree with what you said Geof, but can we realistically expect any 'give' on the part of (s)CARE? With a platform of no towers on Lookout, I have a difficult time imagining they will suddenly be open to compromise. Their current scheme is since LCG did not hold an active FCC building permit when 4092 was signed that it does not apply. When this angle fails I would expect they have several more issues lined up behind it.

As for compromise from BOCC, the best I expect from them would be demanding full compliance with LCG 2003. We'll find out in March, curious to see what might develop before then.

I agree with what you said Geof, but can we realistically expect any 'give' on the part of (s)CARE? With a platform of no towers on Lookout, I have a difficult time imagining they will suddenly be open to compromise. Their current scheme is since LCG did not hold an active FCC building permit when 4092 was signed that it does not apply. When this angle fails I would expect they have several more issues lined up behind it.

As for compromise from BOCC, the best I expect from them would be demanding full compliance with LCG 2003. We'll find out in March, curious to see what might develop before then.Well like you said we'll have to wait and see how it plays out but I doubt the "no valid FCC construction permit" argument holds any merit. First, I don't read S.4092 such that a permit was required at the time S.4092 was passed. In fact I read it as being open ended - i.e., you get an FCC permit in 2009 then S.4092 applies. Secondly I would argue that LCG has had a permit all along. I seriously doubt they'd be pursuing LCG2 if the FCC has not granted them the permission to construct it.

As to SCARE I think they've pretty much shot their wad. They can argue all they want about this and that but when it comes right down to it if JeffCo denies a building permit and LCG starts construction JeffCo loses:
1) If they don't challenge it in court they've lost all means to enforce their ordinances.
2) If they challenge it in court and lose then they've lost all means to enforce their ordinances.
3) If they challenge it in court and ultimately prevail they've spent a lot of money to gain back what they could have had if they just came to an agreement with LCG. This is risky because I don't think it's a slam dunk that they'd win such a battle. S.4092 says "Notwithstanding any applicable State or local land use or condemnation laws or regulations, and subject to all applicable Federal laws and regulations". The word "regulations" might be construed to mean permits. The sentence certainly implies the county has no say in the matter and I'm sure that is what LCG would like it to mean. If JeffCo loses the case then they'd forever more not have any control of anything the stations did and I'm not sure JeffCo wants to risk that outcome. Their safe bet is to come to an agreement with LCG with LCG agreeing to abide with county building codes. This is LCG's best bet as well since it is the least expensive and quickest route to getting the tower built (assuming they want to pursue the quickest route which may or may not be the case).

Then again if LCG wants to put the screws on JeffCo they may risk taking the case to court because if they prevail they'd have JeffCo and SCARE off their backs forever. It will be interesting to see what happens next month and who flinches first. Let the game of Chicken commence....

Too bad JJ can't be Judge Judy...she'd see through the BS and issue a timely ruling. :)

-Glen

These legal discussions are interesting but I wonder. While the issues behind the injuction are moot (rezoning), isn't the injuction still legally binding? In other words, while we and LCG may see the Act of Congress as removing the rezoning issue isn't it necessary for JJ or a higher court to agree, remove the injuction, or woudn't they be in contempt of court?

matt, Being too lazy to look up the coordinates, I'll just ask where in Erie are you looking?

I'm in Lafayette between hwy 42 and 287, just north of Arapahoe. I get most everything marginally using an RS double bow tie in my living room pointed at RP. I had a friend at 119 and Isabelle who ended up getting Comcast because things were getting a little difficult (but I don't know how hard he really worked at it).

My guess is a good UHF or Combo mounted outside would get you everything relatively easily (key word being relative).

From the mapping that gakon drew ... I am in a bowl. The house we are seriously looking at is just S.E. of the 119th and Isabel intersection. If we go forward, I will have a CM4228 (what I have tried from here in SW Longmont) that I will give it a shot. Otherwise, I a comcast bound ... They have much better offerings that in Longmont for HD. I will still continue to get as much OTA as possible.

# Matt

These legal discussions are interesting but I wonder. While the issues behind the injuction are moot (rezoning), isn't the injuction still legally binding? In other words, while we and LCG may see the Act of Congress as removing the rezoning issue isn't it necessary for JJ or a higher court to agree, remove the injuction, or woudn't they be in contempt of court?

I don't think it can't be both ways, i.e. the injunction being moot and yet still in force and binding.

Geof & Jetlag, you both make some very good points. I think a great point made by LCG in their latest brief was that the Midnight Law put jurisdiction over the tower/facilities construction solely at the federal level. So if sCARE, Golden, or the BOCC/JeffCo (plaintiffs) go to local/state courts, any filing would be thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction. If the plaintiffs go to federal court, the court would have jurisdiction but would have to find that that the plaintiffs have no legal "interest" in the matter. Remember, as Geof so aptly quoted - " S.4092 says "Notwithstanding any applicable State or local land use or condemnation laws or regulations, and subject to all applicable Federal laws and regulations". I think LCG has the equivalent of a blank check.

I think LCG will want to comply with local building codes if for anything else than to protect themselves from possible unrelated future suits/actions by employees who may get hurt at the site, to be able to maintain insurance coverage, etc. I also don't think they want to operate in a totally adverse atmosphere with JeffCo/BOCC. But I also don't think they're going to allow being bullied around any longer. They'll probably agree to things that they were willing or going to do anyway. But I don't think we'll see any stretches here.

I don't think it can't be both ways, i.e. the injunction being moot and yet still in force and binding.I think the problem is that an injunction is not moot until the the court which issued it so rules, or another court at a higher level (e.g., federal) so rules. What LCG has is a slam-dunk argument, but an argument is not the same as a ruling.

I think the problem is that an injunction is not moot until the the court which issued it so rules, or another court at a higher level (e.g., federal) so rules.

I understand what you are saying but this is a substance over form issue. The substance of the matter is that LCG can, IMO, ignore the injunction because the plaintiffs have no relief available to them if it is violated. The form of the issue is that, on paper, the injunction still exists.

I understand what you are saying but this is a substance over form issue. The substance of the matter is that LCG can, IMO, ignore the injunction because the plaintiffs have no relief available to them if it is violated. The form of the issue is that, on paper, the injunction still exists.

Maybe the LCG beginning to break ground and proceed forward is what is needed to finally get a rulling out of JJ. Either they will be in contempt, forcing the LCG to a easily winable federal court, and possible JJ slapping by the feds. Or the injuction will be dropped.

LCG is not in contempt with their latest construction. They are just 'cleaning' up their existing site for drainage, that is allowed under their current status. If they started to excavate for a new building, that would not be allowed at the present time.

I think LCG will want to comply with local building codes if for anything else than to protect themselves from possible unrelated future suits/actions by employees who may get hurt at the site, to be able to maintain insurance coverage, etc. I also don't think they want to operate in a totally adverse atmosphere with JeffCo/BOCC. But I also don't think they're going to allow being bullied around any longer. They'll probably agree to things that they were willing or going to do anyway. But I don't think we'll see any stretches here.That is my take as well. If JeffCo tries to take a hard line stance they could lose all say in the matter. If LCG takes a hard line stance we'll see more injunctions and court battles over jurisdiction. I think it's in the best interest of both parties (and certainly for you guys) if they can come to terms during the March BOCC. And I don't think LCG is going to wait around for further BOCC meetings if the issue gets put off again. The time for more delays are over. It's time to come to terms or start construction and let the legal battles begin.

As far as JJ is concerned I don't think LCG will proceed without some sort of ruling or barring that an appeal to a higher court. IANAL but I do believe a higher court can overturn JJ's injunction.

What's really important, the new tower or television for the Denver area? Now we all know the new consolidation tower is nice for many reasons but is it really necessary?

Let's assume Deb earns her quill pen for arguing before the Supreme Court and persuades the justices to deny the tower. No problem, just put a new coat of paint on the existing structures and use them for another fifty years. No new structures .. no building permits. Uncrate the new transmission equipment and connect it to the feedline. Your on the air with digital from Lookout.

Before you begin, verify your construction permit from the FCC. They don't care about local squabbles.

Just be certain the RF power density is within legal limits. That's all .. no need to prove the established legal limits are safe.

That Congressional 'notwithstanding' act should take care of those digital towers are nonconforming because they are different from analog towers kinds of local zoning arguments.

Either way, the Denver area retains over-the-air television. Either way, sCare looses because there will be TV transmissions from Lookout.

--- CHAS

Let's assume Deb earns her quill pen for arguing before the Supreme Court and persuades the justices to deny the tower. No problem, just put a new coat of paint on the existing structures and use them for another fifty years. No new structures .. no building permits. Uncrate the new transmission equipment and connect it to the feedline. Your on the air with digital from Lookout.
Ernie has stated more than once, that the existing towers are EOL. So, that could be a short term solution, but long term something new needs to be built.
....jc

LCG is not in contempt with their latest construction. They are just 'cleaning' up their existing site for drainage, that is allowed under their current status. If they started to excavate for a new building, that would not be allowed at the present time.

I didn't mean to imply that they are, what I meant is that they should begin ground breaking, and by doing so, force the hand of JJ. Enough delay already.

I really think the BOCC should be held in contempt! With all due speed my .....

# Matt

Enough delay already.Didn't someone say this around 2000? :p

I think a great point made by LCG in their latest brief was that the Midnight Law put jurisdiction over the tower/facilities construction solely at the federal level. So if sCARE, Golden, or the BOCC/JeffCo (plaintiffs) go to local/state courts, any filing would be thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction. If the plaintiffs go to federal court, the court would have jurisdiction but would have to find that that the plaintiffs have no legal "interest" in the matter. Remember, as Geof so aptly quoted - " S.4092 says "Notwithstanding any applicable State or local land use or condemnation laws or regulations, and subject to all applicable Federal laws and regulations". I think LCG has the equivalent of a blank check.
I agree. The more times I read S.4092 the fewer potential loopholes I find. I'm not sure who said it, but whomever from BOCC/JeffCo/Golden/sCARE was quoted as saying there were gaps big enough to drive a truck through in it's language must have been hallucinating. IANAL either, but I think LCG is virtually immune from any of the local entities.

I think LCG will want to comply with local building codes if for anything else than to protect themselves from possible unrelated future suits/actions by employees who may get hurt at the site, to be able to maintain insurance coverage, etc.
Again I agree. Complying with code & having all inspections signed off will help with funding, insurance and potential liability claims. Also, I don't think it would even be possible to construct and/or utilize a new TV tower without proper certification.

Other thoughts...
What do I think we'll end up with on Lookout? I would not be at all surprised to see the design of the tower and supporting structures change significantly from the 2003 proposal. If I were LCG I would place the base of the new tower further up slope so that it's top is just below the height of the tallest existing tower. Higher transmitters = improved DMA. Besides, why hamstring yourself in regards to future needs? Along these same lines I would absolutely quadruple-check to ensure that it was not so much as 1 mm taller. Can you just imagine the can of worms it would open up if it were? :eek:

Furthermore, if there are no advantages to the supporting equipment structures being underground (other than for aesthetics) why spend the substantial funds to blast out a giant hole in the mountain? Camoflaging the structures with paint and landscaping would be vastly less expensive and would serve to dampen the ire of Lookout residents. I saw this done on a large radar installation in S. Korea, the stuctures were nearly imperceptable in the forest. Open space: I think releasing some land back to JeffCo would be great PR for LCG, but I would anticipate it may be less than the 75 acres stipulated in LCG 2003. Why not save a bit of it for future tower construction? That last sentence ought to make a few hearts palpitate among sCARE members! ;)
Finally, I'm certain that LCG will remove the 4 old towers once the new one is fully operational, most likely several months afterward to first ensure the reliability of the new equipment.

Oh, almost forgot: Monitoring-Schmonitoring!
If you want the RF levels on Lookout continuously monitored we (LCG) can provide JeffCo a list of companies who can provide that service but we won't pick up the tab. We only create a fraction of the total RF emitted from Lookout so if you want someone to pay for it go talk to Clear Channel.

Oh, almost forgot: Monitoring-Schmonitoring!
If you want the RF levels on Lookout continuously monitored we (LCG) can provide JeffCo a list of companies who can provide that service but we won't pick up the tab. We only create a fraction of the total RF emitted from Lookout so if you want someone to pay for it go talk to Clear Channel.


I agree with your sentiment, Jetlag, and know you are speaking rhetorically. But knowing that sCARE operates by twisting every word by whoever says it, it might be safer to make clearer that you aren't actually speaking for LCG.


-2sleep

I agree with your sentiment, Jetlag, and know you are speaking rhetorically. But knowing that sCARE operates by twisting every word by whoever says it, it might be safer to make clearer that you aren't actually speaking for LCG.


-2sleepThey know full well none of us speak for LCG. They probably loath us as much as them but they know we aren't them.

And I agree with Jetlag's statement. You can bet cold hard cash that Al Hislop will be monitoring RF levels and it won't take long for the STHTF if there is any sort of deviation from predictable levels.

Maybe, but who's to watch the watcher?

Maybe, but who's to watch the watcher?
So true.

That is why I was really in favor of independent third party testing. Al has too much at stake to be trusted not to bend or spin the test results. I still think it would be in the best interest of ALL parties, especially the LCG to have a third party perform regular checks on the mountain. The only question now is who should pay for it? I can understand why the LCG now might not want to, but I still think it is in their best interest, as well as the general public. I wonder how they will come down on the payment now.

My rambling opinion on the latest legal stuff...(IANAL)...

First, I encourage you all to read both of these one after the other (in order):

LCG's Motion To Dismiss and Lift Stay:
http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/LCG%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%201-06.pdf

JeffCo's Response to LCG's Motion to Dismiss:
http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/Jeffco%20Board%20Response%20to%20LCG%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss %20Staj_021207.pdf

LCG's motion is brilliant (as I've stated before). What is very, very interesting to note is when you compare what LCG says to JeffCo's response, you see how JeffCo spins/characterizes/reads-too-much-into the motion to dismiss. Case in point:

Jeffco: "Lake Cedar asks the Court to find that the Act frees it from all local oversight of health, safety and welfare on its property."

That's simply not true -- if you read the LCG motion and you can comprehend the English language, nowhere in their brief did they state anything close to that.

I think from what I've read here and from what seems to make legal sense, the purpose behind LCG's motion is to effectively lift the stay so that they don't run any hazard of being in contempt. I'm guessing that, internally, LCG thinks they can do whatever the hell they want with impunity, but they want to do things the right way.

One way to read JeffCo's response goes like this:

JeffCo's stance: the issue before the court hasn't been decided -- we haven't made our final decision which we were told to do with "all due speed" last May. The issue before the court is a tower-fall/public-health-and-safety issue that is well within the BOCC's purview, and the injunction is based on that issue. They are making the case (read "spinning") that LCG's contention that the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction is, in effect, stating that LCG can continue with impunity and ignore local regulations (I suppose you could read "regulations" , the term used in the "Act", to include items such as building permits, building code requirements etc.).

What I find silly/ironic is that JeffCo even responded to the motion to dismiss. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend that the outcome of the BOCC's upcoming hearing (where, ostensibly they will vote again, under the guidelines set by JJ, on the issue) will be anything other than a unanimous vote to approve the rezoning. (Note, JJ's May 2006 remand back to BOCC mandates that whatever decision the BOCC comes to must include text that shows how they came to that decision. If they vote "no", and don't have competent reasoning such as "oh, see, there really is a tower fall issue and here's proof", JJ will vacate the injunction, slap the BOCC and then..I guess I don't know what -- does he effectively approve the rezoning himself? I dunno...).

I'm guessing JJ isn't going to do any ruling until after the BOCC makes their upcoming decision. But, it would be interesting if he got a wild hair and decided to consider the motion to dismiss outright, right now. I suppose he'd only do that if he felt compelled by LCG's motion and was going to rule in their favor, vacate the injunction and dismiss the case. I wonder what he's thinking right now about JeffCo's response to the motion to dismiss. He could be thinking "JeffCo makes a point -- while their response is rife with useless crap (whether LCG actually has the FCC permits) -- let's say I read the "Act" very narrowly and assume "regulation" doesn't include public-health-and-safety issues such as tower-fall as they relate to things like building codes etc. that the County can enforce. If that's the case, then this court still does have subject matter jurisdiction, and I should let the BOCC make their decision, then work through the aftermath."

This stuff is too darn interesting :-)

- Joe

Posted by skyburn:
Jeffco: "Lake Cedar asks the Court to find that the Act frees it from all local oversight of health, safety and welfare on its property."

That's simply not true -- if you read the LCG motion and you can comprehend the English language, nowhere in their brief did they state anything close to that.

Please re-read the third paragraph on page 4 that begins with "Because" and the first full paragraph on page 7 that begins with "Here" of LCG's brief. IMO, LCG is clearly stating that local authorities have no jurisdiction over the contstruction of the tower.

LCG filed a motion with an explanatory brief to dismiss the case. This filing has nothing to do with any action the BOCC may take in March or at any other time. While JJ may wait to see if the BOCC approves LCG's zoning request, which, if they do, makes his involvement in the case moot, he doesn't have to wait for the BOCC to take an action.

BOCC is a defendant in this case, not a plaintiff. The plaintiff's have not filed any briefs with the court. So, at this point in time, JJ must look at this case as having to issue a ruling on a motion filed by a defendant without any input/objection from the plaintiffs. Since this case, and LCG's related motion, only applies to the zoning request, and taking into account the Midnight Law and no filing from the plaintiffs to object to the motion, JJ has no choice but to dismiss the case.

What I think some of us, including me at times, forget is that this case has nothing to do with building permits, etc. That issue, which sCARE, Golden, and the BOCC may want to pursue at a later time, will have to be decided independently of the zoning issue. But it is clear from LCG's brief that LCG is of the opinion that JeffCo has no authority over LCG's construction of the tower.

BOCC is a defendant in this case, not a plaintiff. The plaintiff's have not filed any briefs with the court. So, at this point in time, JJ must look at this case as having to issue a ruling on a motion filed by a defendant without any input/objection from the plaintiffs. Since this case, and LCG's related motion, only applies to the zoning request, and taking into account the Midnight Law and no filing from the plaintiffs to object to the motion, JJ has no choice but to dismiss the case.

Both City of Golden and (s)CARE have filed brief's in this case (JeffCo's was last filed). The brief from (s)CARE was written by dear ol' Deb and mostly whines that the new law in unconsitutional, along with some yammering about why a State Court can make that determination, and that's why the inunction should stay. I think the Constitutional argument is weak at best, and since the law is a Federal law, it would probably have to be ruled on by Federal Courts and any injunctions on that basis would have to come from there.

sCARE just wants to drag this out as long as they can. Reason being, they consider it a 'win' the longer there is no new tower. But, as we have seen with the 'Act', you can get burned worse if you play dirty or act like a spoiled 2-year old.

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

More bad news for Commish Congrove. He might have something bigger to worry about than a tower, a new roommate named Bubba at the big house!

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5248389

Any Denver stations have plans to not sign on the air tomorrow morning?

Tonight, at midnight, is the two year mark for the turn off of analog TV in the U.S.

Might even be the two year mark for the turn off of all TV in Denver. Could serve as a "wake up call"!

Any Denver stations have plans to not sign on the air tomorrow morning?

Tonight, at midnight, is the two year mark for the turn off of analog TV in the U.S.

Might even be the two year mark for the turn off of all TV in Denver. Could serve as a "wake up call"!
I'm most likely wrong, but wasn't the original date 2/07?

I'm most likely wrong, but wasn't the original date 2/07?
The original date was Dec. 31, 2006.

Posted by skyburn:


Please re-read the third paragraph on page 4 that begins with "Because" and the first full paragraph on page 7 that begins with "Here" of LCG's brief. IMO, LCG is clearly stating that local authorities have no jurisdiction over the contstruction of the tower.

LCG filed a motion with an explanatory brief to dismiss the case. This filing has nothing to do with any action the BOCC may take in March or at any other time. While JJ may wait to see if the BOCC approves LCG's zoning request, which, if they do, makes his involvement in the case moot, he doesn't have to wait for the BOCC to take an action.

BOCC is a defendant in this case, not a plaintiff. The plaintiff's have not filed any briefs with the court. So, at this point in time, JJ must look at this case as having to issue a ruling on a motion filed by a defendant without any input/objection from the plaintiffs. Since this case, and LCG's related motion, only applies to the zoning request, and taking into account the Midnight Law and no filing from the plaintiffs to object to the motion, JJ has no choice but to dismiss the case.

What I think some of us, including me at times, forget is that this case has nothing to do with building permits, etc. That issue, which sCARE, Golden, and the BOCC may want to pursue at a later time, will have to be decided independently of the zoning issue. But it is clear from LCG's brief that LCG is of the opinion that JeffCo has no authority over LCG's construction of the tower.

It may be splitting hairs (that's what seems to hapen a lot in litigation), but I think there is a difference between JeffCo not having any authority to "impede" the tower construction (JeffCo clearly admits that in their response) and JeffCo's responsibility to (regardless of federal legislation) protect the health and safety of the citizenry.

This is totally hypothetical and something like this would be highly unlikely to happen, but, let's say LCG decided that it was material to the construction of the tower to do something that JeffCo clearly sees as contrary to the health and safety of the public. Something that any ordinary person would see as unreasonable like an egregious violation of a building code. It seems to follow that the intent of the federal legislation would not be to let LCG run rough-shod over time-tested, sensible regulation on the construction of buildings.

So, given that hypothetical, that's where I was coming from -- what if JJ really feels that JeffCo is right about their interpretation of the Act -- that it's vague enough with its language, it could be read rather broadly and indeed he sees that it doesn't entirely limit JeffCo's ability to apply standards of building construction. I guess it just makes sense to me that this isn't entirely a cut-and-dried issue. Then again, what legal matter usually is?

But, you're right -- building permits and the like are a separate issue from the present case. I hope LCG does things properly and avoids further confrontation.

- Joe

Ok, I have to admit, I'm pretty shocked.

I bought a Miglia TVMini HD (USB digital tuner, ATSC and clear QAM) for my MacBook Pro so I could record programs to take on the road. The unit I bought is being discontinued and is pretty heavily discounted online (I paid ~$100) because it's being replaced by the TVMini HD+, which includes an analog tuner (hmmm?).

Anyway, it works great connected to my Channelmaster 4228, or Comcast. Just for fun I decided to try the antenna it shipped with, the equivalent of your typical telescoping FM radio antenna. I sat it on my desk next to the tuner, and it locked on to every channel except KRMA and KMGH, and I'm down near Parker and Arapahoe. I couldn't believe it. I was expecting it to pick up nothing.

HDJello, you said in your last post that sCARE/Golden filed a brief with JJ. Do you, or anyone else out there, have a cite so I (and others) can read it? Thanks.

HDJello, you said in your last post that sCARE/Golden filed a brief with JJ. Do you, or anyone else out there, have a cite so I (and others) can read it? Thanks.
(s)CARE has all of these posted on their site (which is more than LCG does for us):

LCG Motion to Dismiss and Lift Stay: http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/LCG%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%201-06.pdf

Response of City of Golden's to LCG Motion to Dismiss and Lift Stay: http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/Golden%20Response%20to%20Dismiss%2007.pdf

Respone of Plaintiffs' (non City of Golden) to LCG Motion to Dismiss and Lift Stay: http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/CARE%20Final%20response%201-26%20_2_.pdf

Defendant Board of County Commissioners Response to LCG Motion to Dismiss and Lift Stay: http://www.c-a-r-e.org/pdfs/Jeffco%20Board%20Response%20to%20LCG%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss %20Staj_021207.pdf

HDJello,

Mercy Buckets!

So,

Is everyone on the air this morning? ;)

Hello Gents - I am a newbie and have a number of questions the vets here will find WAYYY
beneath their knowledge base but help a new guy out.

I am in the market for an HDTV and have my eye set on a 40" Sony LCD Bravia XBR2 (KDL40XBR2).

Now will comcast cable be piped into this thing so that I see the full quality of picture it can produce or will I need an additional box? Will a standard antenae pick up the signal?

Also it will be a 1080P display capable model but I understand TV is not brodcast as such now and won't be for years so should I purchase a cheaper 720 pixal display?

Also will only Bue ray and HD -DVD work with the 1080P?

Any additional info you may have would be helpful.

Also, I am in Colorado Springs.

Thanks in advance.

Now will comcast cable be piped into this thing so that I see the full quality of picture it can produce or will I need an additional box? Will a standard antenae pick up the signal?
It seems to have a QAM tuner, I would double check. You'll need QAM for Comcast. But that is only for unscrambled channels. For the scrambled ones you'll need a 'box' or a cablecard.

Define standard? If you are talking indoor, maybe, maybe not. Some people in C/S do have to use an external antenna for reception.

Also it will be a 1080P display capable model but I understand TV is not brodcast as such now and won't be for years so should I purchase a cheaper 720 pixal display?
CBS uses 1080i, so I wouldn't downrez.

Also will only Bue ray and HD -DVD work with the 1080P?
I don't see why not. Maybe not at the highest rez, but they'll work.

Also, I am in Colorado Springs.
There is also a C/S thread ;)

Also it will be a 1080P display capable model but I understand TV is not brodcast as such now and won't be for years so should I purchase a cheaper 720 pixal display?

Also will only Bue ray and HD -DVD work with the 1080P?



I have seen the Sony and I think it's a good choice and that you will not be disappointed.

Unless the family will go without food, I would not buy a cheaper 720 pixel display. The new HD format DVDs both can output 1080P so why not take full advantage of that capability?

You will not (and may never) see 1080P from broadcast sources. 720P and 1080i are the current HDTV broadcast modes.

You will hear arguments about what you can and cannot see related to screen size and viewing distances. A 40 inch screen can be quite revealing, especially at closer viewing distances.

This picture quality thing is quite complex because of interaction of many variables inherent in too many digital TV picture technical specifications. It's then convoluted by the details of the performance of individual TV sets. Trying to understand it will drive you crazy!

--- CHAS

Thanks guys.

Is there an appreciable difference in the 1080P versus the 1080I and is this for the ressoultion of the picture?

Thanks guys.

Is there an appreciable difference in the 1080P versus the 1080I and is this for the ressoultion of the picture?

Some say they can see a difference for Blu-Ray or HD DVD. I doubt it matters for synthesized game console video. I would think it's only an issue with 1080 video on a 1080 pixel row native resolution set. For less line native resolution such as 768 pixel rows, other factors come into play as the set must scale the image down.

For 1080P all of the 1080 lines are sent sequentially. For 1080I the odd numbered lines are sent followed by the even numbered lines. This is called interlacing and is a throwback to the analog standard. I have seen examples of picture details not exactly lining up between the adjacent lines somewhat ruining the image. This effect can be minimized by proper design of the deinterlacer software in a higher quality set.

Since over-the-air 1080 broadcasts arrive only in the 'I' flavor there is no way to compare.

If you are going to use cable or satellite, there will be compression artifacts that will most likely mask over any deinterlacing effects.

--- CHAS

Thanks again for the insight.

Bull

On my 61" DLP at a 13' viewing distance, the picture can best be desbribed as grainy-almost like the camera is dirty. The secondary cameras (on closeups/faceoffs) appear to be better/sharper.

I know NBC is bad at HD, but this is almost not worth watching.

test....haven't seen any posts in over a day and wondering if board is "up"...

I was actually tired of legal explanations on what ought to be a done deal! Let's hope so.

Hey, guys... I tried to find the info I'm looking for, but you guys have posted A LOT of content (mostly about the Lookout Mt. deal! :) ), so forgive me if this has already been covered.

I picked up a Samsung 1080p HDTV last night, brought it home, and hooked it up. Mostly it's for DVD playback, games (PS2 and Wii at this point, probably a HD console at some point in the future), and watching video from my computer.

On a whim, I hooked up the standard (UHF?) TV antenna that's on the roof up to it and autoscanned for channels.

I picked up about 15 or so (this was with the antenna facing north), including the HD CBS signal from Cheyenne. I about fell out of my seat at how *GOOD* it looks. (I'm not sure why Best Buy and Circuit City always have the same crappy DVD feed dumping into all of their TVs when they could have something this good on display...) There were a couple of other HD stations (PBS, maybe?), too.

Anyway, long story short, Heroes, The Office, and My Name is Earl are three of five shows that we actually watch, so naturally HD NBC would be a VERY good thing. I turned the antenna south, and it picked up about 23 stations, but the only NBC was the standard channel 9 transmission.

Is there a list of the stations available in Fort Collins? (I tried Antenna web, but it didn't show any HD NBC stations in any direction.) Is it worth the money to get a HD specific TV Antenna? Amplifier? (I'd probably get a rotor, too...) Anyone in town want to give me an idea of what I can expect to get in Fort Collins?


Thanks!

I'm not sure why Best Buy and Circuit City always have the same crappy DVD feed dumping into all of their TVs when they could have something this good on display...

Because those channels are only HD during certian programs so they can't display 100% HD whenever they are open the way they can w/that lame demo they have currently.

Remember, people stay home and watch football when it's on in HD and then come into the store when some lame SD program is airing. :D

What I hate are the stores that say you can only get HD content via cable or satellite. Costco is the worse at this.

What I hate are the stores that say you can only get HD content via cable or satellite. Costco is the worse at this.
Yea, have you seen their antenna section:

These antennas are for analog programming only. Please DO NOT attempt to connect these antennas to any device that could receive Digital programming. They could explode and YOU COULD DIE!

Ignorance is bliss.
....jc

abbub - Aim your antenna at Pierce, 15 miles E of Ft. Collins, to get the Denver FOX HD signal on KFCT, ch 22.1 (ch 21). I use it from Conifer Mt to avoid rotating my antenna over to ch 31; it always works great.

What I hate are the stores that say you can only get HD content via cable or satellite. Costco is the worse at this.I'm more annoyed at the intimation that you need a new "high definition antenna" to receive OTA HD signals.

I'm more annoyed at the intimation that you need a new "high definition antenna" to receive OTA HD signals.
...or that you need Monster Cables. :rolleyes:

Is there a list of the stations available in Fort Collins? (I tried Antenna web, but it didn't show any HD NBC stations in any direction.) Is it worth the money to get a HD specific TV Antenna? Amplifier? (I'd probably get a rotor, too...) Anyone in town want to give me an idea of what I can expect to get in Fort Collins?

Thanks!

The main ones you can get from Ft. Collins are:
KDVR-DT (Fox Denver)
KFCT-DT (Translator for Fox Denver)
KWGN-DT ("CW2" Denver)
KGWN-DT (CBS Cheyenne)

You can also get standard-def KBDI (PBS).

To get them all you would probably need a rotator since they are in different directions.

Some people can get KUSA-DT Denver (NBC) but generally not reliably.

That's why the Lookout deal is very important to us--most Denver channels cannot be received here with the current low-power signals from downtown Denver.

Comcast Ft. Collins is an alternative. The lowest tier subscription gets you the locals in HD if you have a QAM-capable tuner.

Mark

Thanks for the info, Mark. So no ABC or NBC, eh? Bummer. In addition to the rotator, would you recommend a antenna amplifier? Would that improve, for instance, the SD Channel 9 transmission?

Thanks for the info, Mark. So no ABC or NBC, eh? Bummer. In addition to the rotator, would you recommend a antenna amplifier? Would that improve, for instance, the SD Channel 9 transmission?

The amplifier is a tough call. If you have the feed split a lot of times probably yes. However, I got better results on most channels after I removed my high-gain Winegard amp--I think something might have been overloading it even with an FM trap switched in.

It will be nice once we can finally just point an antenna south and get all of the Denver locals.

I assume everyone got the "We're working on Lookout Mountain" email from hdtvcolorado.com?

I assume everyone got the "We're working on Lookout Mountain" email from hdtvcolorado.com?
I did and I was thinking about posting the same thing here...

What, no RSS feed on the updates page? They should make this thing into a regular blog with pictures and notes from the construction team. HDTVcolorado.com could be a cool site if they could get past being open and transparent with the public.

This is somewhat OT, so I apologize in advance, but I thought some may be interested...

I found out that Don Perez, the Director of Engineering at KUSA (and now KTVD as well) has announced he's retiring after 36 years at the station.

I bring this up as I know his name has appeared on this thread numerous times due to the fact that he's been very accessible, and VERY good about responding to viewer E-mails, etc. I know he had a big hand in making KUSA's news HD back in 2004, and in general has been a big proponent of HD in this TV market.

In short, I hope whoever replaces him at KUSA/KTVD is as easy to reach, and as responsive as Mr. Perez was.

Best of luck to him :)

I never did get the email about the lookout mountain work. Please post it.

Here you go:
In little more than a year to year-and-a-half Front Range Colorado will be enjoying the benefits of free over-the-air digital television. Work on the new consolidated Lookout Mountain tower has been progressing since the first week of January.



The Lake Cedar Group will continue to periodically update you on the tower project through email. We will also update the http://www.hdtvcolorado.com website with progress reports and pictures as the tower goes up.



For questions or comments, visit the Contact Page at http://www.hdtvcolorado.com.



If you do not wish to receive future communications, please reply to this email with the word “remove” in the subject line.



Thanks

The Lake Cedar Group

On a somewhat related note, we took some out-of-town coworkers up to Buffalo Bill's grave yesterday afternoon. Some of the local staff who've endured my rants about the whole tower situation over the years asked me when/if the new tower was going to be built. I was able to just smile and point at the construction equipment working just below the base of the existing KCNC tower. :D

Illinois homeowners group fights Metro-Fi install. (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81803)

Illinois homeowners group fights Metro-Fi install. (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81803)
By all means, call her on her cell phone (:D) and let her know about this!

Here you go:

On a somewhat related note, we took some out-of-town coworkers up to Buffalo Bill's grave yesterday afternoon. Some of the local staff who've endured my rants about the whole tower situation over the years asked me when/if the new tower was going to be built. I was able to just smile and point at the construction equipment working just below the base of the existing KCNC tower. :D
I'm so sorry to hear that you visited Lookout Mt. and were obviously exposed to the severe radiation there. Have the Doctors told you how long you have left to live? Be sure to let Deb know so she can use you as an example of the ill effects of the exposure.
:rolleyes:

Illinois homeowners group fights Metro-Fi install. (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81803)

It's a great thing that Longmont now has city-wide Wi-Fi. Maybe those people will be too afraid to move here and we can keep our quiet little town.

OT: Don't know if y'all saw it yet on the news, but some armed, wack-job lawyer barricaded himself in his home about a block from where I live. SWAT, a mobile command center, an armored police vehicle and about a zillion police have been here all day and it has really been a PITA getting to/from home, not to mention the traffic mess. I volunteered to let my dogs go in and get hime but for some reason they were not interested.

Now, back to the ongoing tower construction.

Don Perez replied to an email saying he will be working on more HD stuff till he leaves. He says he installed some 5.1 audio gear today and would like feedback. It'll be nice to have NBC catch up with the other stations on 5.1.

I was able to just smile and point at the construction equipment working just below the base of the existing KCNC tower. :D
Ok, where is the sCARE Cam?
....jc

Don Perez replied to an email saying he will be working on more HD stuff till he leaves. He says he installed some 5.1 audio gear today and would like feedback. It'll be nice to have NBC catch up with the other stations on 5.1.

I'm watching Law & Order now and I was surprised to hear 5.1 audio. Sounds Great! :)
I came on line to post and noticed the quoted post.

I thought it was ironic that previously you could hear Scrubs repeats in 5.1 on channel 2 but new shows on 9 were not.

Regarding the previous questions about Denver OTA reception, my (redundant) two cents is that I get NBC in HD, and it looks pretty good for primetime and 9News broadcasts.

I cannot get channel 9 in HD OTA at all.

An, if I remove the pre-amp from my Winegard antenna, I get almost nothing. So, the amp is necessary for me. I'm in Lafayette along 287 between Boulder and I25.

I love 5.1, but the fluctuations in volume are really aggravating. KCNC has always been the worst, but last night I found that I had to turn down my subwoofer just for the commercials on KUSA.

OT: I'm upgrading to a new Projector in my HT, anybody interested in a nice Marantz VP12S2. Works great, Has DVI and will accept HDMI perfectly as well. 2 extra lamps. Still an incredible image that wow's anybody that sees it. PM or email me to discuss. Click on my link to see it: Ernie's Home Theatre.

http://www.santellaproductions.com/ht/pj2.jpg

Cheap!

Did anyone else notice that in addition to Las Vegas being in 5.1 on KUSA Friday night, KUSA also apparently has a spiffy new HD graphics overlay system? They superimposed the KUSA-DT station ID over the upper right corner of the screen during the first minute of the show…

I love 5.1, but the fluctuations in volume are really aggravating. KCNC has always been the worst, but last night I found that I had to turn down my subwoofer just for the commercials on KUSA.

Why would there be much of anything objectionable in the LFE channel? They didn't have full-bandwidth audio in that channel, did they? (Unless they have something miswired.)

I notice a huge volume difference in all stations. Every time they switch from their Network HD feed in Dolby Digital to ProLogic, I have to scamble to find the remote. It drives my wife crazy more than me, but they have to get this balanced better.

You need to give all their engineers some copies of "TV Technology" to read :) .

Do you have an SBE or SMPTE chapter there? Maybe it's time for a seminar with Dolby.

It's not that there's anything objectionable in the LFE channel, I love the bass when it's proportionate to the rest of the sound track or otherwise appropriate for special effects. What I have to object to is when the musical interludes between scenes shake the walls and everything else is too quiet.

Do you have an SBE or SMPTE chapter there? Maybe it's time for a seminar with Dolby.Not sure, but we do have a Holiday Inn Express! ;)

I apologize in advance if I should have done an extensive search prior to posting this question. Hopefully, I'm not offending you all if I post a duplicate question that's already been answered.

Anyway, I live in east Denver (Stapleton area) and have a small internal Terk antenna that works marginally. I'm thinking about purchasing and installing a more elaborate antenna so that I can get a reliable signal on all the available HD stations now (not waiting for the new Lookout antennas). Can you all make a recommendation as to what to purchase and maybe a couple of tips on mounting such?

Much thanks!
David

David,
Welcome to our thread.

Terks are pretty much considered over-marketed-junk. With our low-power situation, you should just get a outdoor roof antenna and point it toward Republic Plaza (the big square tall silver building downtown) The Yagi type as well as the bowtie type seem to be popular and work well here in Denver.

RadioShack locally has some inexpensive ones that work well and the ChannelMaster 3021 is recommended.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103084&cp=&pg=2&sr=1&origkw=uhf+antenna&kw=uhf+antenna&parentPage=search

http://www.starkelectronic.com/uhf.htm

OT: I'm upgrading to a new Projector in my HT, anybody interested in a nice Marantz VP12S2. Works great, Has DVI and will accept HDMI perfectly as well. 2 extra lamps. Still an incredible image that wow's anybody that sees it. PM or email me to discuss. Click on my link to see it: Ernie's Home Theatre.


Cheap!

Don't keep us in suspense, what is your new projector?

David,
...RadioShack locally has some inexpensive ones that work well and the ChannelMaster 3021 is recommended...

sorry apparently I can't repost URL's as a newbie so I stripped them out.

Thanks for the quick reply! A couple of follow-up questions:

1) Is there something special about an antenna to bring in HDTV signal, like the HDX1000 mentioned in your second link? I don't mind spending a little extra to ensure reliabe signal strength. As such, is the HDX1000 recommended?

2) If I go with the CM 3021, do you recommend a "Pre-Amp" also mentioned on this site?

3) Do I need to mount outside on a roof or can I mount it in my attic or inside my garage rafters? In other words, I'm a little concerned how a big honkin' antenna will look on my roof. Again, the HDX1000 looks a little more attractive.

4) Related to number 3, will I need to adjust the pointing of the antenna after it's installed or can one pointing be good for the forseeable future (i.e. until the new Lookout antenna(s))?

Thanks again and glad to be aboard on the forum!
David

Don't keep us in suspense, what is your new projector?The JVC RS1 D-ILA. Native 1080p 15,000:1 contrast.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101681

Now, somebody please buy by Marantz S2 it's a great projector!


1) Is there something special about an antenna to bring in HDTV signal, like the HDX1000 mentioned in your second link? I don't mind spending a little extra to ensure reliabe signal strength. As such, is the HDX1000 recommended?Don't have any info on that model. The Channelmaster 3021 has a good rep here as many of us have them. I have the CM 3023 and it works great. Almost all Digital OTA signals in the US will be in the UHF band (There might be a few exceptions) So, make sure the antenna is a UHF model.
2) If I go with the CM 3021, do you recommend a "Pre-Amp" also mentioned on this site?Try without one first. With all the other RF signals in our area, pre-amps can get over-loaded and usually degrade your results.
3) Do I need to mount outside on a roof or can I mount it in my attic or inside my garage rafters? In other words, I'm a little concerned how a big honkin' antenna will look on my roof. Again, the HDX1000 looks a little more attractive.Attic's can work fine as well as garage ceilings. But, you will have to experiement to find the sweet spot. Sometimes attics work and sometimes they don't. It's a game of inches too. This may sound crazy, but move the antenna 2-3 inches in any direction, and it will make a big difference. Also, remember HOA's cannot stop you form installing a roof antenna, its the law! Now, the WAF law is different (Wife Acceptance Factor) and usually jewelery fixes that. ;)
4) Related to number 3, will I need to adjust the pointing of the antenna after it's installed or can one pointing be good for the forseeable future (i.e. until the new Lookout antenna(s))?If you point toward Republic Plaza which is the lowest power signals then the more powerful signals from Lookout (2,31) will work too. You're in a pretty good spot because they are both almost due west of your location.

sorry apparently I can't repost URL's as a newbie so I stripped them out.

Thanks for the quick reply! A couple of follow-up questions:

1) Is there something special about an antenna to bring in HDTV signal, like the HDX1000 mentioned in your second link? I don't mind spending a little extra to ensure reliabe signal strength. As such, is the HDX1000 recommended?

2) If I go with the CM 3021, do you recommend a "Pre-Amp" also mentioned on this site?

3) Do I need to mount outside on a roof or can I mount it in my attic or inside my garage rafters? In other words, I'm a little concerned how a big honkin' antenna will look on my roof. Again, the HDX1000 looks a little more attractive.

4) Related to number 3, will I need to adjust the pointing of the antenna after it's installed or can one pointing be good for the forseeable future (i.e. until the new Lookout antenna(s))?

Thanks again and glad to be aboard on the forum!
David
1) There is really no such thing as an "HD" antenna. HD is somewhat more sensitive to multi-path reflections (ghosts) but otherwise the principles are the same as for analog reception.
2) The main purpose of a pre-amp is to keep you from losing your signal over a long cable run (100 feet or more). However, they can often cause overload which makes things worse. I'd recommend against it.
3) Outside and high-up is best, but there is no harm in trying other locations first. I have a CM4228 (big brother of CM3021) in my attic which pulls in all the Denver stations, and I'm a good bit further away.
4) I'm guessing that the direction from Stapleton to downtown is not much different than from Stapleton to Lookout. Look up your address on antennaweb.org to see for sure.

The JVC RS1 D-ILA. Native 1080p 15,000:1 contrast.

Wow! The specs look sweet. So does the price.

I've been extremely happy with my older Marantz S2 for about 4 years (many of you guys have seen it in action). Business has been good (knocks on wood) so, it's time for a new toy.

3) Do I need to mount outside on a roof or can I mount it in my attic or inside my garage rafters? In other words, I'm a little concerned how a big honkin' antenna will look on my roof. Again, the HDX1000 looks a little more attractive.

4) Related to number 3, will I need to adjust the pointing of the antenna after it's installed or can one pointing be good for the forseeable future (i.e. until the new Lookout antenna(s))?
My recommendation would be the Winegard PR-4400. Not overly directional as a yagi so pointing it West from your area (try 1/2 way between RP and Lookout Mtn, that's what I do) should get both RP and Lookout stations. Also, it is not a "big-honkin" antenna, yet has impressive specs and I am totally happy with the performance of mine. I always recommend rooftop (or even chimney side) mounting for best results. Shooting through layers of roofing material will attenuate the signal somewhat.

The JVC RS1 D-ILA. Native 1080p 15,000:1 contrast.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101681




I saw a demo of that projector the other day and was very impressed. It is the first projector that uses LCD or LCOS that has a black level that competes with DLP projectors.

You will have to let us know what you think of it over time.

Kurt

Hey guys,
I am in Johnstown and recently switched to E*. When the new tower is complete would it be reasonable for me to pick up all the stations with a good outdoor antenna. I am able to pick up CBS out of Cheyenne and FOX (Fort Collins) via a cheap Walmart (Philips) outdoor antenna, but that is about it. I am on a hill and have a pretty clear line of site to the mountains. Any input much appreciated!
Chris

Hey guys,
I am in Johnstown and recently switched to E*. When the new tower is complete would it be reasonable for me to pick up all the stations with a good outdoor antenna.Should be no problem, and possibly with just an indoor antenna. The coverage from Lookout ranges from south of Cheyenne to just north of CO Springs.

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

Kurt,

Were did you see a demo? I ordered it without seeing it on the huge tradeshow discussions and recommendations.

Ernie,
That's the projector I have my eye on for the HT. I'd like to know what you think of it when you get it all setup. I'm sure it's going to be a winner -- you lucky dog!

Were did you see a demo? I ordered it without seeing it on the huge tradeshow discussions and recommendations.

I saw it at a demo at one of the local AV distributers. The JVC reps were there and they only had it hooked up to a HD-DVD player but I was very impressed.

Kurt

I've been extremely happy with my older Marantz S2 for about 4 years (many of you guys have seen it in action). Business has been good (knocks on wood) so, it's time for a new toy.


Luckily for you -- and sometimes for me -- these toys are deductible.

I ordered this little puppy last week, and it arrived this afternoon. It's a 20" HD Lcd TV, and the price was good(PM me for price). I've only had a few hours of 'playtime', but so far I'm impressed. When I scanned for digital(using Lookout antenna) I picked up KDVR(It's back!) and Telefura HD which I've never picked up before(Football season is over, so I haven't been trying :p ). So, it looks like the ATSC tuner is decent. It also has QAM for the cableites out there, but the rinky dink cableco up here doesn't have HD, so cable is not an option for me(except for internet access).

The picture is very good and the sound is decent. The only downside that I've found so far is the inability to switch between VHF/UHF & cable w/o scanning(I have a strange hybrid system :eek: ). Plenty of connection possibilities including HDMI, Component, Composite, RGB, S-Video and digital audio out.

I'm using this set for my office, and it would also work fairly well in a bedroom. But, so far I can recommend this set.
....jc

It looks like our buddy Jim Congrove is getting closer and closer to being indicted for the snooping mess. Think he'll ask Deb to represent him at trial?

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5383849,00.html

It looks like our buddy Jim Congrove is getting closer and closer to being indicted for the snooping mess. Think he'll ask Deb to represent him at trial?

"Fill in the blank" no!

I've been extremely happy with my older Marantz S2 for about 4 years (many of you guys have seen it in action). Business has been good (knocks on wood) so, it's time for a new toy.

Yes I remember Ernie, I think I got my Sim2 about the same time you got your Marantz. My how time flies.
I am also getting the RS1, just awaiting the shipping notification from AVS. Hopefully it will be Friday or Monday and I should have it in my hands by the end of next week. This unit has some impressive specs for the price. Should be fun.

I got a call from a guy named David, he's in our area and he bought two RS1's!! He's heard about our thread, but doesn't post here (yet). Nice guy, we chatted about video production and HT stuff. He should get his pair next week. (Not exactly sure, but I think he's gonna' stack 'em for more output) Can't wait to see that!

When I fired up my new 20" LCD, I couldn't find KGWN. This was my most powerful and reliable signal. So, I fired off an email to them. Their response:
We apologize for the loss of our digital signal. We are in the process of increasing our output power on channel 30. This has involved reinforcing our tower, changing out the guy wires, and replacing the transmission line and antenna. As you probably know, the weather has hindered this process considerably. To do this we had to remove the transmission line and antenna before we could install the new antenna. This involves increasing our output power from 40,000 watts to over 460,000 watts. This should be done tomorrow afternoon and be back on the air shortly after that barring any major problems.

Again, we apologize for this inconvenience and we do appreciate your comments and concerns. We hope that this installation will make us more accessible to the viewers like you. Again, thank you for watching KGWN-TV and thank you for your comments.
Wow, 11.5 times the power! Cool! However, with my luck, even with more power, I'll probably lose their signal. :mad:

I'll remain positive and check tomorrow! ;) Also, from the tests that I've done so far, the tuner in my 20" Sharp is superior to either of my older receivers! However, KUSA remains elusive, I've never been able to receive it here! :(
....jc

When I fired up my new 20" LCD, I couldn't find KGWN. This was my most powerful and reliable signal. So, I fired off an email to them. Their response:

Wow, 11.5 times the power! Cool! However, with my luck, even with more power, I'll probably lose their signal. :mad:

I'll remain positive and check tomorrow! ;) Also, from the tests that I've done so far, the tuner in my 20" Sharp is superior to either of my older receivers! However, KUSA remains elusive, I've never been able to receive it here! :(
....jc

Is this KGWN (Chyenne Channel 5) or KWGN (Denver Channel 2)? I'm currently receiving KWGN at 10, out of 10, bars. Signal is steady. If you can receive KGWN in Woodland Park that would be amazing.

Is this KGWN (Chyenne Channel 5) or KWGN (Denver Channel 2)? I'm currently receiving KWGN at 10, out of 10, bars. Signal is steady. If you can receive KGWN in Woodland Park that would be amazing.
It's KGWN, and it's 147 miles away. Yup, amazing.

I'm sure that it's my superior antenna system. :confused:
:rolleyes:

But I am at 8,900' with a clear shot past Devils Head which is 20.5 miles out. One of my friends has always received their analog signal. So, it's not rare up here. But, I am a little nervous about their upgrade. 11.5 times more power doesn't mean that something won't change, and I lose it.

KWGN is a complete no show at my location. My best guess is that their radiation pattern doesn't cover much due South.
....jc

TPW,

Thanks for the update on KGWN. I lost their signal a couple of days ago and thought it was probably weather related. I do receive their analog signal also - it has a little "snow" but it very watchable.

These are not photos of Squaw Mountain in the last blizzard, but could be. They're of a repeater site in Idaho somewhere. If sCARE had gottern their way, we could be like this too.

http://www.hamsexy.com/cms/?p=714

-Glen

For grins I checked to see if KGWN was back OTA. Yup, 5.1 & 5.2 are alive and well. On my 20" Sharp(using my 'Republic Antenna'), it's coming in at 80%, which is the same as 15.1 & 20.1. 4.1, 6.1 & 7.1(when it's viewable), come in at 70%.

When I switch to my 'Lookout Antenna', KGWN is coming in at 90%, which retains it's status as my most powerful signal. KDVR comes in at 70% and KDBI pegs at 80%.

I also for a few moments picked up KWHD. Now it remapped to 53.1 instead of 46.1.
....jc

I contacted a home theater company about possibly installing an antenna for me and they recommended the following antenna:

Terk Off-Air HDTV Antenna - Grey
Model: HDTV-S
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6830824&type=product&productCategoryId=cat08084&id=1091101853739

they said they could sell this to me for $120 with installation extra. I know there was some mention about Terk not being so great. What about this antenna, anyone have an opinion on this particular unit?

Thanks,
David

I contacted a home theater company about possibly installing an antenna for me and they recommended the following antenna:

Terk Off-Air HDTV Antenna - Grey
Model: HDTV-S
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6830824&type=product&productCategoryId=cat08084&id=1091101853739

they said they could sell this to me for $120 with installation extra. I know there was some mention about Terk not being so great. What about this antenna, anyone have an opinion on this particular unit?

Thanks,
David

One, we need to know your general location.

Second, Terk antennas are not the best. I had one in the past but not the model you have listed. You might look at the Lacrosse from Antenna's Direct if you want the pizza box look. I'm in Centennial and I have a DB2 from Antennas Direct mounted outside and am able to receive all the local channels. A page or two back in this thread others are recommending a Channel Master etc. Much depends on your location.

One, we need to know your general location.

Second, Terk antennas are not the best. I had one in the past but not the model you have listed. You might look at the Lacrosse from Antenna's Direct if you want the pizza box look. I'm in Centennial and I have a DB2 from Antennas Direct mounted outside and am able to receive all the local channels. A page or two back in this thread others are recommending a Channel Master etc. Much depends on your location.

I posted a page back about antennas recently. I live in east Denver (Stapleton). I thought it was interesting that this Terk also offers VHF as well as UHF reception which I'm not sure the others mentioned offer?

Thanks,
David

Terk Off-Air HDTV Antenna - Grey
Model: HDTV-S
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6830824&type=product&productCategoryId=cat08084&id=1091101853739

I'm pretty sure that's a rebadged Square Shooter (http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?PROD=SS-2000) , which is pretty highly regarded in some circles. I'm just not sure how well it will work here in our area with low-power signals coming from one direction and high-power coming from another (at least for the next year or two).

Maybe someone else can comment on the pros/cons of this type of antenna for the Denver area.

On a related note, when I switch over to OTA and ditch Comcast I'll need to pick up a DTV/HDTV tuner to hook up to my set which only has component input. I'd also like HDMI for future use. Any recommendations?

Thanks,
David

I was a little surprised that "Cider House Rules" the MyNetwork Movie tonight was in HD on KTVD. Now that MyNetwork has started showing movies, has this happened before and I just was not aware of it? Regardless, it was a nice treat tonight at least, even if it was an anomaly.

One, we need to know your general location.

Second, Terk antennas are not the best. I had one in the past but not the model you have listed. You might look at the Lacrosse from Antenna's Direct if you want the pizza box look. I'm in Centennial and I have a DB2 from Antennas Direct mounted outside and am able to receive all the local channels. A page or two back in this thread others are recommending a Channel Master etc. Much depends on your location.

I checked out the Antennas Direct site and interestingly if you download their antennaRecommendations.pdf file it says for Denver they recommend the DB4 because they say the wider beam width has proven successful in receiving broadcast from both Lookout and RP. I wonder if that's overkill since you have the DB2 working. I didn't realize I'd get so many different answers to the question of best antenna. I thought there would be a general consensus regarding what's the top tier.

It's not that complicated. Basically, there's a couple of elements to your decision for an antenna. Are you; near/far and/or need wide/tight coverage. The farther you are, then the longer or bigger antenna antenna will be required to get a strong signal that will lock. And, are you in a location that requires a wider or narrower shot to the RP/Lookout

Distance and wider good choices are: CM4228 or Antennas Direct DB8
Closer the wider: CM3021 or Antennas Direct DB4

Longer & Tighter: CM3679 or CM3023 or Antennas Direct 91XG

Now, not to start any flamewars, sure there are many more antenna that could work, Especially some of the Rat shack models. They might a good place to start, as you can return them if they don't work. The models mentioned above are good brands and many of us here in Denver have and use them to great results. It seems like just about everybody that tried some of the store-recommended Terks, hated them and switched. (I raise my hand as I tried one back before I was on the forum. It didn't work until I switched to a Channelmaster, now it's great with no issues)

Bottom line: with low-power like we have, bigger is better!

The DB2 works for me in that Lookout Mtn & Downtown are in the same general direction and is mounted outside. I have the unit mounted with a J post at eve level of the roof. Since it is small and has a wire grid back the unit blends into the roof. IMO this is much more aesthetic than other outdoor antennas. No complaints from the neighbors.

Later I bought an installed a DB4 mounted in the attic. It works well there. I bought it to experiment with (didn't expect it to work as well as it does since the TV stations are at such low power) and have it tied into a PC. Since it was to be placed in the attic I felt I needed a larger antenna than the DB2. (Note: due to it's size I don't think it would look as good as the DB2 when mounted outdoors.)

That's my experience. Unfortunately since the Denver stations are at low power and you are in a different location it may not be your experience. What ever you buy just make sure you can return it if it doesn't work out. Hopefully antenna selection will become a lot easier when the new tower is finished.

...near/far and/or need wide/tight coverage. The farther you are, then the longer or bigger antenna antenna will be required to get a strong signal that will lock. And, are you in a location that requires a wider or narrower shot to the RP/Lookout

Distance and wider good choices are: CM4228 or Antennas Direct DB8
Closer the wider: CM3021 or Antennas Direct DB4

Longer & Tighter: CM3679 or CM3023 or Antennas Direct 91XG

Bottom line: with low-power like we have, bigger is better!

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I really appreciate the help. At the risk of sounding completely useless and ignorant, I'm really not sure if I need distant and wide, close and wide, distant and tight, distant and wide, etc. My initial guess would be that I'm close and wide but that could be completely wrong. Given that I'm in (North)East Denver, Stapleton, (maybe ~10 miles northeast of downtown?) can you distill this even further and guesstimate (in your opinion), which category I'm in (i.e. of the three you mention above)?

What can you see from your home to west? It sounds like should see both Lookout Mountain (The blinking red towers and the Republic Plaza building (the tallest building downtown - Silver square bldg. Not the cash-register or Qwest buildings) I bet both Lookout and RP are both west or slightly southwest of your location. Right? Then, they both are in a very tight spacing. That would make the long Yagi-type antennas the better choice.

Why not just go to Radio Shack and pickup a Yagi antenna and try it on the ground? You might just get all the signals fine with that. I think you might have some altitude from that location to get a good shot.

On a related note, when I switch over to OTA and ditch Comcast I'll need to pick up a DTV/HDTV tuner to hook up to my set which only has component input. I'd also like HDMI for future use. Any recommendations?

Thanks,
David

I've had very good results with the Samsung DTB-H260F (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=728392&page=5&pp=30) tuner. It's one model that, at least for me, handles very well the gnarly OTA situation we have here.

What can you see from your home to west? It sounds like should see both Lookout Mountain (The blinking red towers and the Republic Plaza building (the tallest building downtown - Silver square bldg. Not the cash-register or Qwest buildings) I bet both Lookout and RP are both west or slightly southwest of your location. Right? Then, they both are in a very tight spacing. That would make the long Yagi-type antennas the better choice.

Why not just go to Radio Shack and pickup a Yagi antenna and try it on the ground? You might just get all the signals fine with that. I think you might have some altitude from that location to get a good shot.

Well I don't know I can actually see LM or RP from outside my house but I think you're right that they are both probably almost in a line due west or very slightly southwest. Agreeing that I'm looking at tight spacing and using AntennaWeb it seems I should be looking at a "Medium directional with pre-amp". I'm not sure about what I need to do, if anything, about the pre-amp part but it seems the Antennas Direct 42XG fits this bill. The 91XG might be overkill as a long range unit. Would anyone disagree this (42XG) is probably a good fit for my situation or think there's a better medium range directional? Also, what about the pre-amp part AntennaWeb recommends?

I am 11 miles SE of downtown and I tried a preamp. It made things worse probably because stations on Lookout like Fox 31 analog broadcasting at high power overloaded the preamp and caused all the low power signals to be lost.

I have a CM 3023 80 in Yagi on my roof on a 10' pole and it works very well. I probably could get by with a shorter one now or a smaller screen bow-tie type. At the time I was working on this (2002), KMGH was very, very low power (on top of their 5 story station!)and I did ALL my work just to bring them in. Everything else was really pretty easy.

Right now, I am sure I could put a smaller antenna in my attic. But, I'm not going to bother until the new Lookout tower comes up by 2009. Anyway, all my neighbors are used to seeing my big ol' Yagi up on my roof. Don't know what they would think if I took it down.

Anyone else notice the new all Spanish all the time sub-channel KRMA is broadcasting? Bye-bye full bandwidth PBS...

On the plus side, looks like KDVR got their guide working again.

Remember when we were all contacting our Congress folks about about S.4092 (Midnight Law)? I got a letter, dated 2-27-07, from Rep. Tancredo today regarding my contact of him. I thought it was interesting enough to post, so here it goes:



Thank you for contacting me with your concerns surrounding proposed Digital Television (DTV) facilitites on Lookout Mountain. I appreciate you taking the time to write to me.

As you know, I have written on several occasions to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the long dispute between the Lake Cedar Group (LCG) and the Jefferson County Commissioners (and more recently the City of Golden - who reportedly planned to use eminent domain powers to take the property that supporters of the project had hoped to site the tower). The FCC assured me on two separate occasions that they supported the authority of local leaders to make siting decisions.

Unfortunately, no suitable agreement was ever reached between the parties despite an approaching deadline for broadcast conversion. Against this backdrop, Senators Allard and Salazar introduced legislation in the closing days of the 109th Congress that set aside local land use authority. The legislation allows any person that holds an approved FCC permit to construct or install a digital television broadcast station antenna and tower on Lookout Mountain provided that the new antenna or tower is of the same height or lower than the tallest existing analog broadcast antenna or tower at that location.

The legislation was passed by unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate and was brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in the waning hours of December 9th, the final day of the 109th Congress, after the completion of all recorded votes. As a result, many members (including me) had already departed when the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee asked that the legislation be brought up and approved by unanimous consent. Because no member objected, the bill was considered passed. It was signed by President Bush on December 22nd, and became Public Law 109-466.

The letter closes with a thank you and a reference to Rep. Tancredo's website.



I put two sentences of the letter in italics. The first italic indicates that the FCC had no intention of ever intervening in the tower issue. I wonder what the FCC was going to do - pull licenses, levy fines, etc. - if LCG's stations couldn't switch over to full power digital at analog cutoff? The second italic seems to indicate that Representatives left after all bills that required a vote were acted upon. I wonder how many were actually present when this bill was passed and if there were enough present to constitute a quorum?

Finally, at least we now know that the Midnight Law is officially Public Law 109-466.

As a result, many members (including me) had already departed when the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee asked that the legislation be brought up and approved by unanimous consent. What a cop-out, Tom! You knew the bill was going to be brought up and could have made time to be there if you REALLY had any objections to it. I'm glad you let it pass, but don't pretend they snuck it past you.

he may just not want to be associated with either side of the issue but his response was a copout.BINGO!

Remember everybody, Monday the circus comes to town again. The Jeffco Commissioners are having another public meeting. 9:15am at the Taj. Not exactly sure what the he!! is going to happen? I would hope JJ would hand down his decision by then.

BINGO!

Remember everybody, Monday the circus comes to town again. The Jeffco Commissioners are having another public meeting. 9:15am at the Taj. Not exactly sure what the he!! is going to happen? I would hope JJ would hand down his decision by then.
Just my own guess, but I think if JJ was going to rule prior to the next Mondays meeting he would have done so by now. He may have decided to let (S)CARE have one final frustration vent prior to ruling against them. At least that is my hope that is all that is going on.

Now, looking at the description of the CEA blue category (which is apparently required for reception of CBS at my address):

Medium Directional with pre-amplifier or Large Directional can be used in blue areas where the HDTV signal is weak or ghost producing structures are around. High rooftop installation is necessary.

Since forum members are not recommending the use of a pre-amplifier, maybe I need to go with a Large Directional (91XG) versus the Medium Directional (42XG). Thoughts/comments/suggestions?

Now, looking at the description of the CEA blue category (which is apparently required for reception of CBS at my address):



Since forum members are not recommending the use of a pre-amplifier, maybe I need to go with a Large Directional (91XG) versus the Medium Directional (42XG). Thoughts/comments/suggestions?
The larger the better! Some people dink around trying to find the smallest antenna for their situation. When you start returning antennas and remounting them, it gets to be giant pita. Wastes lots-o-time.

And, most of us recommend a preamp only after trying w/o one. Or, you've got a long cable run.
....jc

davidwsica; don't overlook antennas from Winegard. I have tried Terks (hey, I was a n00b back then so don't give me any crap! ;) Oh, and I also owned a pair of Bose to. What can I say, I've come a long way with ya'lls help :) ) Channel Master, Radio Shack, Antennas Direct and Winegard. My PR-4400 provides the best reception that I have gotten from any of them.

From my location in east Cherry Creek, RP and Lookout are about 30 degrees apart. Because this antenna is not overly directional I lock every Denver signal without having to use an amp or rotator. Just my $.02.

Here is a link to an excellent OTA antenna tutorial: LINK (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=362694&postcount=1)

Last year I posted a link to a performance chart of various popular antennas but cannot locate it now. This was an independant test with real world results. The performance curves of each antenna was overlayed on the same chart. If anyone has the link could you post it again? Thanks!

Last year I posted a link to a performance chart of various popular antennas but cannot locate it now. This was an independant test with real world results. The performance curves of each antenna was overlayed on the same chart. If anyone has the link could you post it again? Thanks!

Was it this? (http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html)
....jc

Yes! Thanks TPW!

Oh, and if you are truly serious about OTA, you need one of these bad boys:

http://home.earthlink.net/~lu_max/AVS/wade-parabolic.jpg
Measuring in at a mere 8' x 8', the Wade Parabolic UHF! They even make a double side-by-side model which is 16' x 8'. Could you imagine the HOA meeting once you mounted one of those. :D

davidwsica; don't overlook antennas from Winegard. I have tried Terks (hey, I was a n00b back then so don't give me any crap! ;) Oh, and I also owned a pair of Bose to. What can I say, I've come a long way with ya'lls help :) ) Channel Master, Radio Shack, Antennas Direct and Winegard. My PR-4400 provides the best reception that I have gotten from any of them.

From my location in east Cherry Creek, RP and Lookout are about 30 degrees apart. Because this antenna is not overly directional I lock every Denver signal without having to use an amp or rotator. Just my $.02.

Here is a link to an excellent OTA antenna tutorial: LINK (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=362694&postcount=1)

Last year I posted a link to a performance chart of various popular antennas but cannot locate it now. This was an independant test with real world results. The performance curves of each antenna was overlayed on the same chart. If anyone has the link could you post it again? Thanks!

Thanks for the information, I'll have to check out the PR-4400 (thought this is apparently a small directional whereas apparently I need a medium or large)! What channel do you get the worst reception on? CBS?

I looked at the link comparing the antennas and I noticed the following note:

Some of these antennas are UHF-only. While you might not need VHF presently, you probably will after 2008.

Should I be concerned in Denver about VHF (either now or after 2008)?

Not new news but Jeffco (http://co.jefferson.co.us/news/news_item_np_T9_R482.htm) has updated their web site regarding the meeting scheduled for next Monday.

The Board did approve, by a vote of two to one, a motion to respond with an offer for a settlement agreement under which Lake Cedar would agree to abide by the requirements outlined in the Official Development Plan approved by a prior Board of County Commissioners in 2003.

I love the irony in that the BOCC is willing to 'back off" to the requirements they already approved in 2003. It is truly amazing they are willing to make that sacrifice after 4 years of delay and some 'small clarification bill in Congress'. Even though the LCG is just as guilty of delay, I still hope they tell the BOCC what they can do with their vote.......! :D

Since forum members are not recommending the use of a pre-amplifier, maybe I need to go with a Large Directional (91XG) versus the Medium Directional (42XG). Thoughts/comments/suggestions?
David, just stick a pair of rabbit ears on your receiver and see what you get. As close as you are, you might be surprised that (literally!) a pair of rabbit ears may get you some of the stations. I did that here in Centennial (I look right into downtown) and with the rabbit ears I could get 9 and 4...I got the much maligned silver surfer and I get all the stations, including those on Lookout. Just stick something cheap on there and that will tell you how much antenna you will need. Don't spend any money till you give something a try.

Tim

I agree John. Although LCG has been nothing short of duplicitous throughout this process, BOCC and (s)CARE deserve no consideration. Sometimes you reap what you sow (Galatians 6:7).

I expect that LCG has a new finalized plan that bares no resemblance to LCG 2003. A tower slightly shorter than the tallest existing, above ground buildings, and 4 existing towers that they will be in no hurry to demolish.

Should I be concerned in Denver about VHF (either now or after 2008)?KMGH (7) and KUSA(9) will be going back to their VHF frequencies after the analog shutoff in 2009. The Channel Master 4228 is noted for having decent gain in the high VHF band (7-13), but YMMV.

KMGH (7) and KUSA(9) will be going back to their VHF frequencies after the analog shutoff in 2009. The Channel Master 4228 is noted for having decent gain in the high VHF band (7-13), but YMMV.

So, I gather most people here on the forum are using UHF-only antennas? What does everyone plan to do when KMGH and KUSA move back to VHF? Replace your antenna?

What does everyone plan to do when KMGH and KUSA move back to VHF?I'm going to bask in the glow of all that high-power RF beamed over Deb Carney's head. Plan (a) is just to put a small indoor antenna on top of the TV, which may be all I need. If that doesn't work, plan (b) is to use the old yagi antenna which a previous owner put in my garage.

I really expect to be ok either way. I tried an indoor antenna some time ago, and it had no trouble picking up KWGN-DT and KDVR-DT, which are already on Lookout Mountain. And my garage yagi gets great reception of both the analog and digital stations that are on Lookout Mountain.