New York, NY - OTA - Page 576 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 8Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #17251 of 17255 Old Yesterday, 07:31 PM
Member
 
Giacomo Siffredi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bergen County, NJ.
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhfyagi View Post
update on metv. I spoke to someone at 4 times square. this afternoon they said that wplj would be debuting by friday.
There are many someones at 4 Times Square on a Wednesday afternoon. You need to be a little more specific reporting that here in order for interested parties to determine if this particular someone would have unique knowledge of the situation in order to make that statement.

WJLP does sound like WPLJ, doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamus21514 View Post
WPLJ are the call letters? I highly doubt that?
WPLJ is the call-sign of a highly billing but typical female-oriented mainstream Adult Contemporary FM station in New York City. Perhaps the management at PMCM TV thinks that if they can subliminally create a tie-in with this low-rated but high-billing radio station, they will somehow benefit by adding viewers from that highly-targeted audience. This is the only reason I can fathom as to why the station's future call-sign has been reported by Lee Leddy as WJLP.

I am still confident that KJLP will be the ultimate legal call-sign. In fact, earlier today, an associate of mine confirmed to me that the FCC has not received any request to reassign the WJLP call-sign. Of course, as long as a TV station identifies their legal call-sign once per hour, they can call themselves whatever they want during the remaining 59 minutes and 50 seconds of the rest of the hour.
Giacomo Siffredi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17252 of 17255 Old Yesterday, 08:36 PM
Member
 
foxycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

So, I do think that WFSB has a legitimate reason for wanting to be known as Channel 3 in the places where it has a history of being known as that.
Should I expect that new station anytime soon?
foxycat is offline  
post #17253 of 17255 Old Yesterday, 08:40 PM
Member
 
Giacomo Siffredi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bergen County, NJ.
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mod50ack View Post
I am from northern Long Island. No connecticut signal, including WFSB, has ever been caught by me. It is out of the DMA of me, New Jersey, and New York. The only ones that I have heard were caught were WFSB8 in the analog days.
Given Long Island's geographic location in relation to the Atlantic Ocean, that is a little surprising. RF signals often travel better (and farther) over water. Nevertheless, I do not doubt your reception report.

In this significantly more landlocked area here in Bergen County, NJ., I can also report the absence of any reliable Connecticut television stations. However, there are several very reliable, though not particularly strong, Connecticut radio stations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
I don't think regulations work, if any exist.

I have problems with one of my DTA's (a CM7000) handling stations that broadcast the same virtual channel info.

In southwwest Nassau County, I can receive both WZME (RF42, 43.1)
I can also receive WNYX-LD (RF43, 43.1)

When my CM7000 does a scan, it finds both stations, but it keeps the last channel info it finds, and overwrites WZME with WNYX-LD.

My other DTA allows me to search channels individually.
Many years ago, when plans to transition from Analog to Digital Television were first being discussed, the FCC should have insisted on a standard that would have required all ATSC/QAM tuners built into all DTA converters and television receivers sold here in the United States to provide for the ability to manually enter and/or tune the RF channel. Along those lines, another standard should have been insisted upon that would require any television station broadcasting a digital signal to identify their RF channel either concurrently or within their legal ID.

I do not know whether the NAB ever advocated for such standards, but if they didn't, that decision was lamentable. Who knows how many OTA viewers are presently being deprived of some television stations whose signals didn't happen to be strong enough to be added in their receiver's last scan?

It is perplexing when the FCC, whose role is to regulate broadcast stations, seems to base most of their decisions on what they apparently believe will soon be a country in which everyone subscribes to cable television and has a cable company issued converter.
Giacomo Siffredi is offline  
post #17254 of 17255 Old Yesterday, 09:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giacomo Siffredi View Post
...

Many years ago, when plans to transition from Analog to Digital Television were first being discussed, the FCC should have insisted on a standard that would have required all ATSC/QAM tuners built into all DTA converters and television receivers sold here in the United States to provide for the ability to manually enter and/or tune the RF channel. Along those lines, another standard should have been insisted upon that would require any television station broadcasting a digital signal to identify their RF channel either concurrently or within their legal ID.

...
I agree with you about manual tuning, but I think including the RF channel number in the station identification announcements would confuse a lot of viewers. Hey, maybe the station id announcement could give the megahertz frequency, just like for radio stations.
veedon is offline  
post #17255 of 17255 Old Yesterday, 10:30 PM
Member
 
Giacomo Siffredi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bergen County, NJ.
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I agree with you about manual tuning, but I think including the RF channel number in the station identification announcements would confuse a lot of viewers. Hey, maybe the station id announcement could give the megahertz frequency, just like for radio stations.
Veedon, if you think displaying the RF channel number would confuse a lot of viewers, I hasten to think how confused they would be to see two numbers separated by a hyphen Some people may not even know to associate "megahertz" with broadcasting, and think instead it may have something to do with federal healthcare reform

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Although I'm not from New York, I find KVNV's situation very interesting because it will be a test of the viability of broadcasting on VHF-Lo in a major metropolitan area, and it will also be fascinating to see how advertisers react to a station in a major market having Me-TV as the primary affiliation. Will MeTV on KVNV be able to attract more and better advertisers than MeTV on WZME did?
The KVNV and KJWY (now KJWP) situations without question represent an historical and highly fascinating broadcasting milestone, given the unique circumstances of their humble beginnings in rural communities, and how a broadcasting company based in New Jersey purchased these two stations in anticipation of creating two new commercial VHF television stations in the New York City and Philadelphia markets by using a 1980s law originally intended to benefit one television station, and which hadn't been used since.

Certainly, the programming offered on Me-TV is more inviting then infomercials or otherwise brokered programming, and thus its programming fare could better test the viability of the VHF-Lo band in a major metropolitan area. The only caveat is the high percentage of pay TV penetration already present in the NYC market. However the matter of the channel number issue is ultimately decided, this station will eventually find a place somewhere on all of the areas pay TV providers. Most of the viewing of this station will probably be via cable/phone/satellite. Now, as I eluded to earlier, if KVNV is operated comparably to KJWP, there are some reasons why viewers will prefer to tune into KVNV via it's OTA signal, and I think once they know why, many of those viewers will attempt to access the OTA signal.

Initially, I would expect most advertising to be PI stuff, with one or two local businesses airing spots or sponsoring local breaks. Depending on what happens with the channel dispute and how PMCM TV markets the station, I expect the local advertising will increase, although not to the level of a traditional network affiliate. Certainly, owning the station outright and not being relegated to a subchannel will help tremendously in terms of marketing and traffic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
So, I do think that WFSB has a legitimate reason for wanting to be known as Channel 3 in the places where it has a history of being known as that. But that should not stop KVNV from being Channel 3 in other places. That would be easy enough to do on cable systems. (Just have WFSB take the Channel 3 slot on the Connecticut cable systems, but let the new KVNV have the channel 3 slot on the cable systems outside Connecticut.

But how do you handle things OTA. If somebody is viewing the channels OTA in that part of Connecticut where both stations' signals can be received, then the tuner is going to receive the same PSIP info for the new KVNV as a person watching OTA in New Jersey would receive. Now, if there were a translator in Connecticut that could broadcast a special KVNV signal with PSIP info for just the Connecticut area, that could solve the problem, but that would be an expense that KVNV would not want to bear.

I wonder whether KVNV could agree to be on a subchannel of WFSB in Connecticut and adjust its main transmitter so that the KVNV signal from Times Square would not reach into Connecticut. That would require a business agreement between the two stations, and it would deprive KVNV of being a -1 channel in Connecticut.
Neither PMCM TV nor Meredith has any interest or intent to facilitate a situation in which KVNV would be carried on a WFSB subchannel. The issue, as Nyctveng correctly pointed out earlier today, is that WFSB is mostly concerned with losing the channel 3 slot on cable systems such as Cablevision that carry both NY & CT stations. Meredith did not like the FCC's initial dismissal of Meredith's informal objection as premature, and thus they escalated the matter requesting a declaratory ruling.

This is a crowded metropolitan area with few open channels, and thus these types of conflicts can be expected. This conflict, however, is quite unique for many reasons and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Ultimately, the FCC and the broadcaster parties involved may have to concede to the OTA audience's abilities to differentiate between a channel 3-1 broadcasting Me-TV programming and another channel 3-1 broadcasting WFSB, in the event that some viewers find themselves located within areas in which both signals provide reliable service.

Which is why, as I stated earlier and you apparently agree, this dispute should be isolated to only those counties in which WFSB has long occupied the channel 3 dial position on the MVPDs. My hunch is that the territory in dispute essentially only exists in southern Connecticut, with perhaps a sliver portion of Long Island, NY., and thus these are the areas in which a delay of the station's carriage is perhaps warranted. However, a blanket delay, as is in place right now, is overbearing and unwarranted.
Giacomo Siffredi is offline  
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception

User Tag List



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off