The official final DTV Table Of Allotments/channel change thread - Page 244 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #7291 of 7375 Old 12-30-2011, 07:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
OTAhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the Groves
Posts: 1,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Hate to tell you but in 2 days it won't be on the air.






[/b]

Doesn't bother me. I was just going by the expiration date on the CP. In fact, even though the station was granted a License To Cover by the FCC, it actually was never built! It has never been on the tower they claim to be on. Has never broadcast a signal. I will be glad to see it deleted and removed from the database. We have a couple more in our area that have done the same thing. Two, I think are under investigation now, one I have word will be deleted soon, and another that needs to be investigated. I would like for them to be prosecuted for making willful mis-statements on government documents, to tell the truth...

You never know where the LIMIT is until you EXCEED it... Dianne B. "Let's try that again... without the oops." (Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in "Independence Day")
OTAhead is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #7292 of 7375 Old 12-30-2011, 05:48 PM
Senior Member
 
dhett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chandler AZ
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

Doesn't bother me. I was just going by the expiration date on the CP. In fact, even though the station was granted a License To Cover by the FCC, it actually was never built! It has never been on the tower they claim to be on. Has never broadcast a signal. I will be glad to see it deleted and removed from the database. We have a couple more in our area that have done the same thing. Two, I think are under investigation now, one I have word will be deleted soon, and another that needs to be investigated. I would like for them to be prosecuted for making willful mis-statements on government documents, to tell the truth...

LMO Christian Media owns it - that's no surprise. They and Hispanic Christian Community Network are two of the biggest offenders in what I call "phantom stations". Here in AZ, HCCN has several phantoms, and even sold one to LMO. To no one's surprise, the station continues to be a phantom. The M.O. for both is to buy a rural station and get it licensed without ever going on air, then to file a series of applications to step the "station" into a large city, where they sell the license at a profit. Sound familiar? KQHO was also owned by HCCN and sold to LMO. It has been moved from Beaumont to Houston.

As a Christian, I find the sleaze of it all especially shameful, as they dare to drag the title of "Christian" into their shady dealings. Gerald Benavides is another such sleaze. All 3 are HQ'd out of the D/FW Metroplex.

KQHO's CP is to cut to DTV on ch 20, and that really is good until 9/1/2015, but if they had actually been operating, they would need to cease operations on ch 56 after 12/31 until they got ch 20 up and running. A correct example of this is K55DB, a PBS translator in Prescott AZ, who has filed a silent STA and will be off the air beginning Saturday night, until they get their digital facility up and running on ch. 43.
dhett is offline  
post #7293 of 7375 Old 12-31-2011, 04:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
OTAhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the Groves
Posts: 1,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

LMO Christian Media owns it - that's no surprise. They and Hispanic Christian Community Network are two of the biggest offenders in what I call "phantom stations". Here in AZ, HCCN has several phantoms, and even sold one to LMO. To no one's surprise, the station continues to be a phantom. The M.O. for both is to buy a rural station and get it licensed without ever going on air, then to file a series of applications to step the "station" into a large city, where they sell the license at a profit. Sound familiar? KQHO was also owned by HCCN and sold to LMO. It has been moved from Beaumont to Houston.

As a Christian, I find the sleaze of it all especially shameful, as they dare to drag the title of "Christian" into their shady dealings. Gerald Benavides is another such sleaze. All 3 are HQ'd out of the D/FW Metroplex.

KQHO's CP is to cut to DTV on ch 20, and that really is good until 9/1/2015, but if they had actually been operating, they would need to cease operations on ch 56 after 12/31 until they got ch 20 up and running. A correct example of this is K55DB, a PBS translator in Prescott AZ, who has filed a silent STA and will be off the air beginning Saturday night, until they get their digital facility up and running on ch. 43.

Sounds very familiar. How do they get away with this with the FCC?

Phantom stations. Now I know what to call them. Irks me to no end...
Thanks for the backstory.

You never know where the LIMIT is until you EXCEED it... Dianne B. "Let's try that again... without the oops." (Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in "Independence Day")
OTAhead is offline  
 
post #7294 of 7375 Old 12-31-2011, 08:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mountain Ranch
Posts: 5,359
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1350 Post(s)
Liked: 284
I like "phantom stations" too. We have lots of those around here. They play all sorts of paperwork games with the FCC but the stations never come on the air.

Chuck
Calaveras is offline  
post #7295 of 7375 Old 12-31-2011, 08:39 AM
Senior Member
 
dhett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chandler AZ
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

Sounds very familiar. How do they get away with this with the FCC?

I think that the key is that there are so many LPTV/translator stations out there, the FCC doesn't have even close to the staff necessary to check all of them out, so they concentrate on the full-powers (although not always well either) and rely on complaints from the public or from honest operators themselves to police the low-power stations. Applications for license seem to be routinely granted for low-power stations, especially rural ones, without anyone ever checking if the station is actually operating.

I've seen stations with licenses where I cannot even find any kind of tower at the location specified. I've seen stations go silent for years at a time without ever notifying the FCC and without losing their licenses, while operators honest enough to report a silent station lose their licenses after being silent for 12 months. I've even heard - but I cannot verify the story - of one owner who claimed to be operating from a certain tower, and when informed of it, it was news to the tower owner!

I've wrestled with whether or not I should rat out these owners, especially at license renewal time, but in the end, I decided that the FCC really isn't even concerned. They have bigger fish to fry, like taking spectrum from OTA TV and selling it for broadband use. Then again, that might be the thing that makes the plans of these spectrum peddlers backfire: once the OTA TV band is reduced, there won't be any spectrum available in large cities for LPTV operators anyway, so those licenses the peddlers procured will become worthless in the end.
dhett is offline  
post #7296 of 7375 Old 12-31-2011, 11:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
OTAhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the Groves
Posts: 1,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

I think that the key is that there are so many LPTV/translator stations out there, the FCC doesn't have even close to the staff necessary to check all of them out, so they concentrate on the full-powers (although not always well either) and rely on complaints from the public or from honest operators themselves to police the low-power stations. Applications for license seem to be routinely granted for low-power stations, especially rural ones, without anyone ever checking if the station is actually operating.

I've seen stations with licenses where I cannot even find any kind of tower at the location specified. I've seen stations go silent for years at a time without ever notifying the FCC and without losing their licenses, while operators honest enough to report a silent station lose their licenses after being silent for 12 months. I've even heard - but I cannot verify the story - of one owner wholly claimed to be operating from a certain tower, and when informed of it, it was news to the tower owner!

I've wrestled with whether or not I should rat out these owners, especially at license renewal time, but in the end, I decided that the FCC really isn't even concerned. They have bigger fish to fry, like taking spectrum from OTA TV and selling it for broadband use. Then again, that might be the thing that makes the plans of these spectrum peddlers backfire: once the OTA TV band is reduced, there won't be any spectrum available in large cities for LPTV operators anyway, so those licenses the peddlers procured will become worthless in the end.

I have no qualms whatsoever about ratting them out. I know someone has complained about 3 of the phantoms around here, and I have decided to file a formal complaint about the other two ASAP... Kinda a pet peeve thing.

It's one thing for a LPTV broadcaster who is struggling to get on the air and quite another to get CP then falsely claim to be on the air.

You never know where the LIMIT is until you EXCEED it... Dianne B. "Let's try that again... without the oops." (Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in "Independence Day")
OTAhead is offline  
post #7297 of 7375 Old 01-01-2012, 06:52 PM
Senior Member
 
dhett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chandler AZ
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTAhead View Post

I have no qualms whatsoever about ratting them out. I know someone has complained about 3 of the phantoms around here, and I have decided to file a formal complaint about the other two ASAP... Kinda a pet peeve thing.

It's one thing for a LPTV broadcaster who is struggling to get on the air and quite another to get CP then falsely claim to be on the air.

I had decided that the FCC just didn't care; I guess we'll see then.
dhett is offline  
post #7298 of 7375 Old 01-23-2012, 09:19 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 15,572
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 857 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
More VHF increases coming to the northeast.

WNYT-12 in Albany wants to boost from 15 kW to 30 kW.

The big deal, though, is a four-way interference agreement that involves:

WABC-7 New York from 26.9 kW to 34 kW
WXXA-7 Albany from 10 kW to 15 kW
WWNY-7 Watertown from 34 kW to 42 kW
WBNG-7 Binghamton from 20.4 kW to 34 kW

- Trip

N4MJC

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

RabbitEars

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

Trip in VA is online now  
post #7299 of 7375 Old 01-27-2012, 08:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Falcon_77's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Posts: 2,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 14
AMENDMENT OF SECTION SECTION 73.622(I), POST-TRANSITION TABLE OF DTV ALLOTMENTS, TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS (LINCOLN, NEBRASKA). Substituted channel 15 for channel 51 at Lincoln, Nebraska for station KFXL-TV. (Dkt No. 11-192 RM-11646 ). Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 01/26/2012 by R&O. (DA No. 12-91).

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...DA-12-91A1.pdf
Falcon_77 is offline  
post #7300 of 7375 Old 02-17-2012, 08:36 PM
Member
 
Gary in Pok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've read that congress is preparing to auction of some parts of the broadcast TV spectrum for other uses, such as wireless internet.

Does anyone here know more about this (or is it being discussed in some other topic)? What spectrum exactly? Are some channels going away (parts of UHF, or VHF-Lo, or VHF-Hi), or is this per channel, per market, depending on the local channel assignments? In some parts of the country, there doesn't appear to be that much available spectrum, to the point that getting new broadcast licenses or power increases is difficult.

I like my broadcast HDTV, and I don't want congress doing anything to remove the broadcasts I receive.

I read this here, but there's not enough technical info:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/bu...ref=technology
Gary in Pok is offline  
post #7301 of 7375 Old 02-17-2012, 11:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coyoteaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
coyoteaz is offline  
post #7302 of 7375 Old 03-13-2012, 11:46 PM
Member
 
pamajestic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gettysburg, PA
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 17
WGAL translator channel 49 Harrisburg, PA is now broadcasting. I am receiving it very well at 40 miles to the south.
pamajestic is offline  
post #7303 of 7375 Old 03-15-2012, 05:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How will the fill in translators be treated in the auction and repacking? Will they be considered primary under their full service parent's license or will they be considered secondary LDs?
Sammer is offline  
post #7304 of 7375 Old 03-15-2012, 07:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Rory Boyce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 868
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13
FYI
link to article about class A LPTV titled "More steps toward tv band clearing"

http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/03/a...band-clearing/

The first paragraph follows

The thinning of the ranks of Class A TV stations continues. We reported recently that the FCC has started to propose the downgrading of a number of Class A television stations to LPTV status, presumably to make room for the almighty broadband to take over TV spectrum. The stations targeted in the first round of that effort had (a) failed to file Children’s TV Reports and (b) failed to respond to FCC’s inquiries about the whereabouts of those reports. (The Commission later fined a number of other stations which had also failed to file kidvid reports; they escaped the dreaded downgrading because they had at least responded to the FCC’s inquiries.)

Rory
Rory Boyce is offline  
post #7305 of 7375 Old 03-15-2012, 07:19 PM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rory Boyce View Post

FYI
link to article about class A LPTV titled "More steps toward tv band clearing"

http://www.commlawblog.com/2012/03/a...band-clearing/

The first paragraph follows

The thinning of the ranks of Class A TV stations continues. We reported recently that the FCC has started to propose the downgrading of a number of Class A television stations to LPTV status, presumably to make room for the almighty broadband to take over TV spectrum. The stations targeted in the first round of that effort had (a) failed to file Children's TV Reports and (b) failed to respond to FCC's inquiries about the whereabouts of those reports. (The Commission later fined a number of other stations which had also failed to file kidvid reports; they escaped the dreaded downgrading because they had at least responded to the FCC's inquiries.)

Also don't forget that the FCC has a Sept 2015 shutdown date of analog LPs. Many analog PS either can't or won't switch to digital and will be shut down. So easy way to free up spectrum for them without having to cough up cash.
BCF68 is offline  
post #7306 of 7375 Old 03-15-2012, 09:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 1,004
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13
They should have required the end of analog low power tv much sooner than 2015!

Hopefully Canada will require the end of analog full power tv in the "non mandatory markets" and the end of low power analog tv in all markets on the same date, and Mexico will require the end of all analog tv, full or low power, nationwide on the same date. That way tv manufacturers can start leaving analog tuners off of North American models starting with the 2016 model year. This would force Central American NTSC countries to get on board quickly also.

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!! And now the deadline has been extended again!
Desert Hawk is offline  
post #7307 of 7375 Old 03-16-2012, 10:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
Pete-N2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lynchburg, VA
Posts: 685
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 50
When will public safety have to vacate the T-Band?

http://urgentcomm.com/policy_and_law...owns-20120313/
Pete-N2 is online now  
post #7308 of 7375 Old 03-16-2012, 12:07 PM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

They should have required the end of analog low power tv much sooner than 2015!.

That will be here before you know it. 2009 doesn't seem that long ago.
BCF68 is offline  
post #7309 of 7375 Old 03-16-2012, 04:35 PM
Senior Member
 
dhett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chandler AZ
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Also don't forget that the FCC has a Sept 2015 shutdown date of analog LPs. Many analog PS either can't or won't switch to digital and will be shut down. So easy way to free up spectrum for them without having to cough up cash.

If a station is not Class A, the spectrum it uses is already free for theft use. LPTVs are secondary and can be forced to move or shut down altogether at any time without compensation. So, for a majority of LPTV stations, the 2015 deadline isn't holding up anything.

As for Class A stations, they were given primary status in exchange for certain obligations, such as minimum 3 hours locally-produced programming per week and filing reports for children's television. If they're not living up to their obligations, why should they continue to enjoy primary status? I'm with the FCC on this one.
dhett is offline  
post #7310 of 7375 Old 03-16-2012, 08:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
re_nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Here's a hypothetical. I'll use the Dallas market only for illustration and this doesn't imply this would ever happen here.

Let's say Ion's KPXD/68 (RF-42) wishes to compensate Daystar's KDTN/2 (RF-43) to trade virtual channel numbers. The rationale might be that a general market station such as KPXD wants the "status" of being identified as channel 2 instead of the arguably less prestigious 68. Daystar would simply rebrand as channel 68 and perhaps pocket the money.

No facilities would change (they're both pretty comparable anyway). Would the FCC allow this under the ATSC rules for channel mapping?

I ask because long, long ago, I worked at GE's Nashville facility. A facility swap happened back in 1973 where our television station (WSIX-TV/8) worked out an arrangement with Metro's NCE WDCN/2 to switch facilities. WSIX-TV/8 became WNGE/2 and WDCN/2 became WDCN/8 (now WNPT).

Frankly, it was a wash since the move to channel 2 didn't really enhance the signal in the heart of the DMA. The idea was that moving from 8 to 2 would put us closer to the other big guys in the market, WSM-TV/4 and WLAC-TV/5. It never worked out to GE's benefit and as far as I know, channel 2 is still mired in third place.

A similar swap happened in New Orleans between the old WVUE/12 and WYES/8. I believe that was a win for WVUE.

Nowadays, the channel number is merely a virtual entity. Thus, it seems that unless prohibited by the commission, a trade of such a entity could be done should a station want to do a makeover.
re_nelson is offline  
post #7311 of 7375 Old 03-16-2012, 08:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 15,572
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 857 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
From what I understand, stations under common control can share or exchange virtual channels. The ATSC rules otherwise bind the virtual channel to the previous analog, but I don't think the FCC is being too rigid about it. On the other hand, KUSI was going to move to 18-1 (they're RF18) when KDTF-LD was going to sign on as 51-1 (RF51) but ultimately did not do so.

- Trip

N4MJC

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

RabbitEars

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

Trip in VA is online now  
post #7312 of 7375 Old 03-16-2012, 10:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Larry Kenney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,378
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 561 Post(s)
Liked: 87
It would be so much simpler, easier and nicer if everyone would just use their real transmitter channel number...but that ain't going to happen.

A good change would be if a station wanted to use their transmitter channel number instead of their old analog channel number, they could if they wanted to. This requirement of having to use your old analog channel number for your virtual channel on digital is nothing more than something to appease the stations who want to keep their old image, i.e. FOX2, CBS5, ABC7, etc. Some stations would love to use their digital channel ID. A station that is transmitting on channel 8 but using virtual channel 52, for example, probably would love to ID as channel 8. If a station doesn't care if they keep their old analog image and wanted to change to a new digital image, why not let them?

This PSIP ID business is nothing but a pain in the you know what when it comes to trying to explain to users that to get channel 2 you need a UHF antenna. I've always thought that this virtual channel numbering was a crazy idea from the beginning.

And check this out... Here in the San Francisco Bay Area we have virtual 2 on RF 44, Virtual 44 on RF 45; 4 on 38, 38 on 39; Virtual channel 1 (yes one) on 42, 42 on RF 14, Virtual 14 on 51; 54 on RF 50, virtual 50 on 32, 32 on 33. It can really get crazy!

KAXT 1 got that because they and KRCB 23 were both analog 22. Some tuners couldn't handle both of them being 22.

Our NBC station, KNTV, transmits on channel 12, has a virtual channel of 11, but is channel 3 on cable. They never mention their channel number. They're simply "NBC Bay Area".

Larry
SF

My complete SF Bay Area DTV Station Lists: http://www.choisser.com/sfonair.html
Lots of Broadcasting links and information: http://www.choisser.com/broadcast.html
Live reception scans from my HD Home Run receivers: http://www.larrykenney.com/hdhr/
Photos and info on my antennas: http://www.larrykenney.com/tvantennas.html
Larry Kenney is offline  
post #7313 of 7375 Old 03-17-2012, 09:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mountain Ranch
Posts: 5,359
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1350 Post(s)
Liked: 284
The virtual channel scheme is a mess for anyone like me who lives in a fringe area. Most of the TVs don't have software designed to handle virtual channel conflicts.

For example, I have KLFB virtual and real 22, KRCB virtual 22 and real 23, KEZT virtual and real 23, and KBSV virtual 23 and real 15. No matter how they're scanned in, there's always one station I can't tune to.

I wish that every TV had an option for direct RF entry. At least there would never be any RF channels that you couldn't tune to.

Chuck
Calaveras is offline  
post #7314 of 7375 Old 03-17-2012, 09:40 AM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

If a station is not Class A, the spectrum it uses is already free for theft use. LPTVs are secondary and can be forced to move or shut down altogether at any time without compensation. So, for a majority of LPTV stations, the 2015 deadline isn't holding up anything.

As for Class A stations, they were given primary status in exchange for certain obligations, such as minimum 3 hours locally-produced programming per week and filing reports for children's television. If they're not living up to their obligations, why should they continue to enjoy primary status? I'm with the FCC on this one.

So what does that have to do with what I posted since you quoted me.
BCF68 is offline  
post #7315 of 7375 Old 03-17-2012, 10:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
Sammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhett View Post

If a station is not Class A, the spectrum it uses is already free for theft use

That's why I am so concerned about the fill-in translators that seem to be licensed only as LDs. The whole point of the fill-in translators is to provide reception that was lost because of the digital transition. If they are not protected as primary during the auction/repacking then that is proof that the government wants to screw the public.
Sammer is offline  
post #7316 of 7375 Old 03-17-2012, 04:29 PM
Senior Member
 
dhett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chandler AZ
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

So what does that have to do with what I posted since you quoted me.

I think I misread your point; my bad.
dhett is offline  
post #7317 of 7375 Old 03-17-2012, 04:43 PM
Senior Member
 
dhett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chandler AZ
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

That's why I am so concerned about the fill-in translators that seem to be licensed only as LDs. The whole point of the fill-in translators is to provide reception that was lost because of the digital transition. If they are not protected as primary during the auction/repacking then that is proof that the government wants to screw the public.

It all depends on how the LP stations are licensed. If they're "replacement translators", then they are inseparable from the full-service license. They share the same call sign and facility ID as the primary, are renewed along with the primary, and automatically go with the primary if the primary is sold. Replacement translators should have the same rights as the primary. Fill-in translators that are licensed as separate LPTV stations won't have any protection.
dhett is offline  
post #7318 of 7375 Old 03-18-2012, 12:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 1,004
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 13
KAIL MYTV Fresno was analog channel 53. They were digital RF channel 7 pre transition and stayed there post transition. They now map to virtual channel 7, not 53. I think someone posted that they have a waiver from the FCC allowing them to do this. Does the FCC grant these kind of waivers to any station that asks for one, or do they sometimes deny them. Fresno was an all UHF market in the analog days (except for a few LPs starting in the 90s). I wonder if any other stations in Fresno protested KAIL's mapping to 7, since the other stations all have "UHF" virtual channel numbers, including one other real VHF.


Do any PBS stations promote themselves by channel number anymore? KVPT Fresno never advertises itself as "channel 18" (they used to many years ago). KCET, when it was PBS, didn't advertise itself as "channel 28" (they still don't). Apparently the station in New York City calls itself "Thirteen" as prominately displayed at the end of programs they produce.

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!! And now the deadline has been extended again!
Desert Hawk is offline  
post #7319 of 7375 Old 03-18-2012, 05:44 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 15,572
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 857 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
A few, but not many. WLVT and WFWA both brand as "PBS39" but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. The reason is that so many PBS stations are carried on multiple channel numbers, whether through additional full-service signals or through translators. Plus, with cable being as prominent as it is, the channel number usually isn't consistent for the PBS station anyway.

- Trip

N4MJC

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

RabbitEars

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

Trip in VA is online now  
post #7320 of 7375 Old 03-18-2012, 08:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Calaveras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mountain Ranch
Posts: 5,359
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1350 Post(s)
Liked: 284
I wonder if TV stations will follow the lead of FM stations and brand themselves with all sorts of names? The only station I know doing that around here is KOTR which calls themselves "The Otter." They also advertise as "My 11" because of their cable channel even though they are still analog on RF 2.

Chuck
Calaveras is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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