New York, NY - OTA - Page 583 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 17Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #17461 of 17467 Old 09-19-2014, 09:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
Aero 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Totowa, NJ
Posts: 639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ednixon1 View Post
KVNV channel 3 in New York is trying for an October 1, 2014 sign on date. If you look at the TV tower on the very top of the 52 story Conde Nast building at 4 Times Square and there is still a yellow gin pole alongside the new Jampro / AB Dick circularly polarized channel 3 antenna on top, then they won't be on the air. The construction jin pole is still up, today, Friday Sept. 19. The website for KVNV 3 and it's sister station KJWP 2 in Philadelphia is PMCM TV dot com
There are two transmitters ready to go. To differentiate the 720p HD signal from an overlapping coverage area with channel 3 in Hartford, CN
KVNV 3 will be using psip ID 3.10 for it's primary HD channel rather than the usual 3.1.

meTV hopes to be originating actual native HD programming on this station rather than the upconverted 480p on KJWP 2.
This will be shows that were shot on film and scanned into HD, such as Hogan's Heroes, which was done for HD net years ago.
We are awaiting the HDTV network downlink gear for that. It will be a new network launch, meTV HD.
A photo of the antenna atop 4 Times Square with yellow construction gin pole in place is attached.
Please stand by, we hope you can get the 7KW ERP channel 3 in October.
thanks for the feedback. you said we a few times there, do you work at PMCM? hope you do meet your new launch date.

OTA | Netflix | Hulu+ | Amazon Prime | MLB.tv & MLS Live with
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Aero 1 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17462 of 17467 Old Yesterday, 06:18 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aero 1 View Post
thanks for the feedback. you said we a few times there, do you work at PMCM? hope you do meet your new launch date.
I highly doubt they will be online Oct 1. Kvnv employee has said they won't come on for at least three months. Don't get your hopes up high
uhfyagi is online now  
post #17463 of 17467 Old Today, 01:00 AM
Member
 
Giacomo Siffredi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bergen County, NJ.
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Exclamation PMCM TV, LLC. Is 100% Within It's Legal Rights

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I like the proposal. It allows the new KVNV to be Channel 3 for all of its OTA viewers while still allowing WFSB and KYW to be Channel 3 both OTA and on cable systems in areas where those stations have historically marketed themselves as Channel 3.

The main objection will likely be that some OTA viewers could be misled into thinking that the KVNV feeds on 3.10, 3.11, etc. are subchannels belonging to station WFSB or subchannels belonging to station KYW. This could be remedied by requiring all of the stations to do station identification announcements (on all of their subchannels) that announce the call letters and maybe even announce the company that owns the station. (Wouldn't it be nice to know what company is responsible for the station?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post
(uhfyagi's) proposal is quite ridiculous...actually f***ing ridiculous. The KVNV/WFSB issue is very isolated. You don't go write new rules and screw with stations that have been on the air with a channel identity for decades to please a new station that is able to go on the air due to a loophole. It is great for the market that a new station is coming but not at the expense of displacing those that have been here.

The proposal of using 3.10+ PSIP sounds fair.
Meredith Corporation overextended themselves by complaining about PMCM TV's PSIP. While I agree that some sort of compromise is helpful - and I think that compromise exists in PMCM's proposal to not seek a channel 3 assignment on Fairfield County, CT. pay TV systems - the reality is that the majority of viewers in this region have been and will be watching these stations via a pay TV service provider. Initially, many observers thought that Meredith's objections were based on this premise, specifically that the right of WFSB to request channel 3 carriage from area MVPDs would be endangered. But as we can now see through FCC filings, this was likely not the case.

I have no objection to PMCM TV's proposal with respect to both it's OTA and retransmitted signal via the regional MVPDs that serve the New York, NY and Fairfield, CT. television markets, except that I strongly feel the portion of that proposal concerning the OTA signal of KVNV is unnecessary.

PMCM TV, by their actions, in no way attempted to displace or interfere with any existing television station. It is important to note that the only objections to KVNV raised have been those by the licensee of a television station that operates outside of KVNV's present or future market.

I encourage anyone interested in this matter to read through the numerous pleadings and exhibits attached thereto filed by all interested parties with the FCC. I'll forewarn: they are quite lengthy. I have read through them, and I've reached this conclusion:

PMCM TV is 100% within its legal rights to both identify its OTA signal as channel 3-1 AND, as a station electing must-carry status, to demand carriage from any MVPD operating within its signal contour on channel 3.

The term "virtual interference", as referenced numerous times by Meredith, is both alien to and absent from the FCC's rules. Prior to its "Alternate PSIP Proposal", PMCM TV sought a compromise in which it would forego its statutory right to seek channel 3 carriage on those MVPDs within Fairfield, CT; apparently that earlier compromise was unsatisfactory to Meredith. Additionally, PMCM TV has noted where, pursuant to statute, every U.S. state - including New Jersey - MUST be served by a commercial VHF television station. To that end, New Jersey has been deprived of this right since June 2009 when WWOR-TV Secaucus signed-off its channel 9 signal, and the constant meritless objections raised by Meredith (licensee of a CONNECTICUT station that operates outside of the New York market) could conceivably deprive New Jersey of it's right to enjoy a commercial VHF television station for potentially years to come should the matter continue in litigation.

The following links direct to the various filings. Incidentally, the July 17, 2014 letter attaches material from AVS forum member Trip Ericson's website http://www.rabbitears.info/ as an exhibit. All pleadings filed with respect to this matter are found within the Correspondence Folder section "Imported Letters"

FCC: KVNV Correspondence Folder: http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/corrp_list.pl?Facility_id=86537

FCC: KVNV Imported Letter - July 17, 2014: http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/pro...etter_id=50985

FCC: KVNV Imported Letter - July 28, 2014: http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/pro...etter_id=52509
Giacomo Siffredi is offline  
post #17464 of 17467 Old Today, 05:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
[Disclaimer: While I do work for the FCC, I do not work on this type of issue. My comments are my own personal opinion and are not necessarily representative of the FCC, its commissioners, or staff. My comments are also not legal advice.)

But the FCC adopted ATSC A/65C to manage PSIP, and adopted it in full. (See 73.682(d).) Annex B makes only a minor reference to markets, but is stated explicitly to apply to overlap in digital service areas, which the areas of WFSB and KVNV most certainly do overlap. Further, it specifically makes reference to major channel numbers (the 3 in 3-1). Of course, the regulations also don't assume a license will be moved from 3,000 miles away and have an existing conflicting virtual channel, which makes them somewhat unclear in this case. But I think WFSB is on much firmer legal ground than KVNV is here. When the FCC was going through their rulemaking to assign 4 to Atlantic City and 5 to Seaford (now Dover), Fox complained about potential overlap between what is now WMDE and their WTTG, and the FCC clearly stated that whoever signed on the channel 5 allotment would have to use virtual channel 36. If Meredith is complaining here about the same thing for the same reason, I don't see how you can treat this situation differently from that one.

Additionally,, while there are plenty of places where PSIP overlaps, the idea that no conflict exists is only anecdotal. I've seen plenty of instances where conflicting PSIP causes one station or the other to not be received on certain receivers. If you want people to receive your signal over the air with an antenna, then the virtual channels should not overlap. The 3-10 proposal prevents that, but I have to agree that it limits the rights of WFSB in a way that other stations are not limited (what if WFSB decides they want to put up a channel on 3-10?) and could create confusion that KVNV on 3-10 is commonly owned with or controlled by WFSB.

Because the regulation really does not anticipate this specific situation at all, I would argue the 14-1 proposal made the most sense, though a strict reading of the regulation does lead me to the conclusion that 33-1 is also valid. If I were the one making the decision, 14-1 is the path I would choose.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
post #17465 of 17467 Old Today, 08:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 47
If KVNV were to use a virtual channel number other than 3, such as 14, wouldn't that mean that it could not demand carriage on channel 3 on the cable systems? That's what the real fight is about. What virtual channel number a station uses for OTA transmissions is of lesser importance. Being right near WCBS and other local stations on a cable system could make a difference in how profitable KVNV is able to be.

Even leaving aside the confusion created by the difference between physical channels and virtual channels, the regulation of OTA is just messed up because the rules have not been brought fully into the digital age. The rules are so out of date and need to be revised. Why should stations nowadays have to pay a higher fee for a VHF allocation? VHF was better than UHF in the old days (getting a VHF allocation was a big deal for WNET), but that is no longer true.
veedon is offline  
post #17466 of 17467 Old Today, 08:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 143 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giacomo Siffredi View Post
... Additionally, PMCM TV has noted where, pursuant to statute, every U.S. state - including New Jersey - MUST be served by a commercial VHF television station. To that end, New Jersey has been deprived of this right since June 2009 when WWOR-TV Secaucus signed-off its channel 9 signal, and the constant meritless objections raised by Meredith (licensee of a CONNECTICUT station that operates outside of the New York market) could conceivably deprive New Jersey of it's right to enjoy a commercial VHF television station for potentially years to come should the matter continue in litigation.

...

I wonder when that statute was passed. That's an example of an old law that needs to be revised in light of new technology. Maybe the statute should be repealed and just let the FCC have full authority over channel allocations. Congress could always step in again if it felt that it needed to intervene, but it's usually better to leave decisions like that to the people who are experts in the technology.

I'm pretty sure that very few OTA viewers are clamoring for more signals on VHF-Lo.
veedon is offline  
post #17467 of 17467 Old Today, 08:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US | Age: 25
Posts: 14,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA Send a message via Yahoo to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
I wonder when that statute was passed. That's an example of an old law that needs to be revised in light of new technology. Maybe the statute should be repealed and just let the FCC have full authority over channel allocations. Congress could always step in again if it felt that it needed to intervene, but it's usually better to leave decisions like that to the people who are experts in the technology.
The law was passed in the 80s. WOR in New York was about to lose its license (I forget why) and went to Congress. In a great bit of evidence that Congress has always been just as bad as it is now about big business, they passed this law that said if a station requested to move to another state to become its only commercial VHF signal, its license would automatically regardless of any other issues that license may have had. The law passed, WOR requested a move to Secaucus, NJ, and the license was retained. Then, 20 years later, it was used for only the second time in its history for KVNV and KJWP.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is online now  
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