or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Denver, CO - OTA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Denver, CO - OTA - Page 4

post #91 of 8459
I would be interesting to see what would happen(pure fiction) if the FCC said that it's disgusted with the behavior of the Denver stations. The FCC gives them the ultimatum: In 6 months we're going to pull your NTSC licenses. You've dinked around long enough. Your digital CP's will also expire and not be renewable after 6 months.

How long do ya think it would take to get the new tower built and operational?

Yea, that's what I thought. 12 to 15 months my a$$.
....jc
post #92 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by TotallyPreWired View Post

I would be interesting to see what would happen(pure fiction) if the FCC said that it's disgusted with the behavior of the Denver stations. The FCC gives them the ultimatum: In 6 months we're going to pull your NTSC licenses. You've dinked around long enough. Your digital CP's will also expire and not be renewable after 6 months.

How long do ya think it would take to get the new tower built and operational?

Yea, that's what I thought. 12 to 15 months my a$$.
....jc

Well, all things aside, the tower consortium does want it up and the manufacturer wants to make money. The FCC wants it up and the TV stations are tired of all of this. They WANT this thing up ASAP. And maybe even moreso motivated so that they tick off the very residents that wanted it moved elsewhere in the first place.

What you MIGHT see happen is stations not going to their original full power levels, but still at full power. Here's an example: WREX-DT in Rockford, IL originally had an app in for 1 million watts on channel 54. Seeing others at 80% less power going out and covering the DMA, they decided, just before the July 1 cutoff,
to go to under 200 kw. With a good antenna, a 15 kw low power signal gets out 40 miles plus. A Chicago station on Sears Tower with an STA of 15 kw easily got out 60 miles. Granted, it's 1,600' up, but how high above average terrain is yours going to be? If you can get away with 100 kw to cover your DMA, as one Chicago PBS station does, why not do it? 60 miles away, that station nearly pegs my signal meter.

If anything, I wish that all of the broadcasters who filed low-power STAs did so with enough signal to at least cover the market with an outfoor antenna. Many just threw up 100 watt lightbulbs on their analog transmitter towers to get 2 kw-ish of power. Our local TBN affiliate did 50 watts ERP on channel 10 to start out.
If stations would have been at high power two years ago, more people would have discovered DTV OTA and wanted it. To that end, broadcasters who did this are to blame, in part, for the slow acceptance of DTV. You have to take the loss first. Many didn't, and it hurt everybody. The FCC should never have allowed these low-power STA's, or at least have a market coverage signal over them if they did.

But that's neither here nor there now. Just build the thing, throw the barbecue,
lightning the fire using their promotional pieces, either leaflets handed out or printed off the Internet, and crank the juice.
post #93 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebenste View Post

Well, all things aside, the tower consortium does want it up and the manufacturer wants to make money. The FCC wants it up and the TV stations are tired of all of this. They WANT this thing up ASAP. And maybe even moreso motivated so that they tick off the very residents that wanted it moved elsewhere in the first place.



post #94 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by TotallyPreWired View Post




Couldn't have said it better myself.
ROFLMAO

Gilbert
Maybe you just had to be there (or in this case, you just had to be HERE). The stations here are in as big a hurry to be on the air as I am to buy that new estate in Aspen I can't afford. As long as they stick together in the LCG they don't have to worry that one will get on the air and make the others look bad. They will drag their feet and get on the air all at the same time at the very last minute no matter how slow they have to move.
post #95 of 8459
Quote:


I think it may even be easier than that - they will simply claim hardship. After all, those other stations have been able to spread their capital expenditures on equipment over several years, many continue on beyond the cutoff. Our per diem operating expense will be through the roof - much, much higher than anyone else since we can only spread the expenditure out over a few months. You'll drive us out of business!!!

I hope you're not serious! Stations owned by CBS, Gannett, and McGraw Hill are claiming hardship? I guess these owners don't have any other stations (that are at full power?).

Per diem operating expenses. Give me a break. Don't throw cost accounting and economic benefit analysis into this. Doesn't matter when a station had to buy the new equipment for digital broadcasting. The COST is approximately the same for everyone. The period these stations write it off over (per diem expenses) merely spreads it over income statements. Delaying the expenditures, with no negative effect on income, then writing them off over a shorter period of time, evens out over time.

And
Quote:


You'll drive us out of business!!!
post #96 of 8459
Quote:


They will drag their feet and get on the air all at the same time at the very last minute no matter how slow they have to move.

John, will all due respect, is that why you picked 8-30-08 as your pool date?
post #97 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by gakon View Post

Someone (who knows how) is going to have to post a calendar so that we can keep track of these dates.

Been there -- done that -- too tired.

Go Ernie!
post #98 of 8459
Well I certainly don't think the LCG stations were in a terrible hurry to get LCG2 built and they still may not be, but I think their successful lobbing for S.4092 shows that they were at least determined to get this issue resolved - in their favor of course. Of course they saved a truckload of dollars with S.4092 since Lookout has the roads and power so nothing to pay for there and the STL's pretty much stay the same since they're not moving off the mountain. That said I don't think they are going to dawdle with getting LCG2 done. They need to strike while the iron is hot and get the thing built before any other setbacks happen. Stretching the build out costs money (the contractor isn't going to sit around for free while they stretch this out) and the cost of building materials seems to go up every week (trust me on this I know it all too well). More importantly, stretching the build out just leaves an open window for more suits and injunctions......we know a judge will issue a stop work order to keep them from building but can you imagine a judge issuing an injunction to make them stop broadcasting? Nah they need to get this thing built as quickly as possible and I'm pretty confident they know that.

Now then, once the facilities are built there is no way in hell, and I mean absofrickinlutely no way in hell, the FCC is going to allow KMGH and KUSA to not power up because they want to wait until they can use channels 7 & 9.
post #99 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMartinko View Post

Couldn't have said it better myself.
ROFLMAO

Gilbert
Maybe you just had to be there (or in this case, you just had to be HERE). The stations here are in as big a hurry to be on the air as I am to buy that new estate in Aspen I can't afford. As long as they stick together in the LCG they don't have to worry that one will get on the air and make the others look bad. They will drag their feet and get on the air all at the same time at the very last minute no matter how slow they have to move.

TPW and JM:

I agree with you in the sense that they would *want* to dawdle. But with the prospects of additional lawsuits and other things, external factors are forcing their hand to want to get this done with ASAP. Still, duly note: I still forecast a 2/09 sign-on date. I said they want to get it done ASAP. I never said it *would* get done ASAP.
post #100 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by milehighmike View Post

John, will all due respect, is that why you picked 8-30-08 as your pool date?

No, I am trying to be an optimist and hoping that pressure from local citizens as well as the FCC will get them to at least try to be on the air for the fall season about 6 months before they need to be. I think that is about the earliest date they will push to make. I agree with others, there is a certain level of pressure from several sources including the fear of another court case which will provide at least some impetus to get this done now. I suspect that most of the equipment they already own at the RB can serve as backup for the Lookout stuff. I assume they will need backup gear anyway, so I don't see that as a loss other than the translators for the stations that will change back to their existing analog frequencies. As I said, I am trying to be optimistic. I just don't think the FCC will let them all stall until the 2009 cutoff date now that their major excuse ((S)CARE) is out of the picture. I assume they will push for something less than ASAP, but at least enough time before the 'drop dead date' to keep the FCC of their backs. Besides, the date I took is simply a guess, I am not aware of any personal costs for being wrong, which I have been many times on this subject.
post #101 of 8459
New article in Denver Post on the tower.

Looks like Jefco wants channel 2 on the tower. Deb's mad (as always).
post #102 of 8459
Jeffco still wants input on tower construction and Deb Carney has now turned on the county officials that were her staunchest allies year ago.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5108424
post #103 of 8459
The Rocky has the story too. (Same info)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...312731,00.html

It's official now, the County has finally listened to their own lawyers who've told them... we're screwed. All that's left is begging for crumbs. And best of all, now as far as they are concerned, its Deb who?
post #104 of 8459
Quote:
Area residents, many of whom are represented by Canyon Area Residents for the Environment, are upset.
"We're outraged that we haven't been included," said CARE attorney Deb Carney. Jefferson County officials are "totally rolling over and are not fulfilling their oath of office by not even including the people who live there in these discussions."

Because the commissioners have finally realized that listening to these people has only gotten them into trouble. Jeffco is a lot larger than just the area represented by sCARE. I like how the Rocky didn't even give Deb a quote.
Not that I'd expect it to happen, but I think it would be great to get channel 2 on the tower as well. What's funny is that the the mountain backdrop could end up being a lot "cleaner" now that S.4092 has passed than if sCARE had gotten its way and prevented construction of the tower. Of course, that's what people have been arguing all along.
post #105 of 8459
From the Rocky story:

"For more than a decade the group of broadcasters sought the county's approval to build new towers on Lookout Mountain capable of handling the larger and heavier digital TV transmitters."

I've never heard this one before. I can't think of any reason why the transmitters would be any different (maybe UHF for 4-1 vs. VHF for 4-0).
post #106 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxothuk View Post

From the Rocky story:

"For more than a decade the group of broadcasters sought the county's approval to build new towers on Lookout Mountain capable of handling the larger and heavier digital TV transmitters."

I've never heard this one before. I can't think of any reason why the transmitters would be any different (maybe UHF for 4-1 vs. VHF for 4-0).

That is obviously incorrect since the transmitters themselves do not sit on the tower. I think what he meant to say was "antennas" (duh) which may be larger and heaver but not because they are transmitting digital signals. Directional antennas would be heavier then their omni directional counterparts. Secondly, the new tower will hold antennas for at least 4 stations and that is certainly not the case for the existing towers.

Poor ole Deb, whining once again.
post #107 of 8459
The stations that are currently on RP should consider moving their existing DTV low-power transmitters from RP to the new tower as soon as it is built. IIRC, there is a state educational network in the midwest that is using a "mobile transmitter site", all built in to a large truck, to "fill in" during reconstruction of their sites. Maybe something similar could be used for the short time that each station is moving from RP to the new tower. Once the new tower and it's building is complete, perhaps KCNC and KTVD could go ahead and broadcast full-power, while KMGH and KUSA could share use of a UHF transmitter that is destined to be a "backup" transmitter for one of the other stations, but can be re-tuned to one of the existing UHF STA channels. They can then work on installing their permanent VHF transmitters.

It might not be possible to operate the temporary station at full power, due to mutual interference, but it's a lot better than having (KMGH and KUSA) to buy and operate two full-power UHF transmitters and antennas for only a few months.
post #108 of 8459
I thought it was interesting that although the subject of channel 2 was brought up in one article, there was no mention of channel 6. It seems to me that KRMA is the station still left with the major problem, and I haven't seen discussions of what their plans will be. Somehow I just don't see them getting approval for the Morrison site.

Great to see Deb's group being phased out of the story. After years of being in the spotlight (which she apparently loves) she is being downgraded from a major player to an interested bystander. I wonder what her law firm will do now, maybe they will try to shut down the FM stations on Lookout????
post #109 of 8459
Quote:
"I don't want to see a proliferation of towers; I want to see a consolidation," said Commissioner Kevin McCasky. "It's not in the best interests of our citizens to continue a legal dispute."

I like this quote the best. Did they not know LCG's proposal was a consolidation not a proliferation of towers. Don't feel the least bit sorry that they are no longer calling the shots. Just think if they would have listened they would still have a say in future proposals on Lookout. They really screwed themselves and I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. The county owes CARE nothing. Ernie you right wine (not whine).
post #110 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMartinko View Post

I thought it was interesting that although the subject of channel 2 was brought up in one article, there was no mention of channel 6. It seems to me that KRMA is the station still left with the major problem, and I haven't seen discussions of what their plans will be. Somehow I just don't see them getting approval for the Morrison site.

It was brought up so 5 towers would be replaced by 1. They are still trying to bargain without any bargaining power.
I have an idea move channel 2 to the new tower. Then let KRMA take over Channel 2's tower. Isn't it now possible for KMRA to move to or build on Lookout.
It must be devistating for them to go from being in control to be controlled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMartinko View Post

Great to see Deb's group being phased out of the story. After years of being in the spotlight (which she apparently loves) she is being downgraded from a major player to an interested bystander. I wonder what her law firm will do now, maybe they will try to shut down the FM stations on Lookout????

Maybe she is now disinterested. One thing we know for sure. You can fill in the blanks.
post #111 of 8459
Also, I find it interesting that there hasn't been a peep from the City & Mountain Views rag. She thought she was so high and mighty too. Especially when I frustrated her with actual answers to all her questions and she then blew-up and told me to go F*ck myself. Well, guess who got f*cked in the end?
post #112 of 8459
Update:

sCARE just updated their website again. Guess she has plenty of time on her hands to attempt to over-ride the President's law.

http://www.c-a-r-e.org/
post #113 of 8459
I suppose if Deb ever quit filing appeals she would have to find a real job. As long as she keeps this up she can keep drawing a salary from the (S)CARE funds. I have never heard any comments about her work being 'pro bono' or whatever they call it, so like any 'good lawyer', you never stop those billable hours until the client makes you stop. And here I was worried she would have nothing to do. At somne point though, I would think those (S)CARE funds and contributions will start to dry up as it dawns on the folks that they are throwing money down a hole.

PS
My apologies to any real lawyers in our thread.
post #114 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by santellavision View Post

Especially when I frustrated her with actual answers to all her questions and she then blew-up and told me to go F*ck myself.

Gasp! I'll have to contact the 'Outhouse' committee. She may not be worthy.
....jc
post #115 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by TotallyPreWired View Post

Gasp! I'll have to contact the 'Outhouse' committee. She may not be worthy.
....jc

I told this story a couple of years ago. Carole Lomond called me when she saw my name on a list of speakers at one of the JeffCo public hearings. She calls me and says she wants to interview me (Like I'm the only one living on the mountain Pro-tower).

She starts asking me questions about why I'm for the super-tower and why would should I support more towers etc. I tell some real facts that they are reducing the number of towers and this is a 'consolidation' of towers that'll benefit us living up here by improving our property values. She also asked about alternates like Eldorado or Squaw Mt. I tell her about the huge shadowing issue and how even Mr. Hislop admitted to the shadowing problem. She starts to get upset.

So, then when she's about done with me, I ask her a few questions about why was she endangering herself and family by continuing to live here and why do you think the familes and children on Squaw Mt. are less important than your family? That's about when she blew-up and told me to go F-myself, then hangs up. Quality journalism.

She's a real piece-of-work.
post #116 of 8459
Who thinks that local judge will do the right thing and dismiss his legal obstacles to the project? He will be overruled but the question is at what level of jurisdiction. Can this go directly to the federal level for a quick resolution if sCare's legal antic's continue to complicate the matter?

Can LCG be held in contempt for it's current construction activity? Is that activity an attempt to expose the remaining legal issues?

Lots of strategies here. This is fun.


--- CHAS
post #117 of 8459
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIPAR View Post

Who thinks that local judge will do the right thing and dismiss his legal obstacles to the project? He will be overruled but the question is at what level of jurisdiction. Can this go directly to the federal level for a quick resolution if sCare's legal antic's continue to complicate the matter?

IANAL, but I think if Judge Jackson rejects or dithers on LCG's motion to dismiss, then LCG would file suit in federal court to overrule/vacate his injunction - and would probably win as soon as the case could be heard. But I think they want to at least give him the chance to do the right thing before taking that step.
post #118 of 8459
LCG's current construction work is just prep work for rain run-off. They have stated that is allowed by their existing zoning.

Timing at the moment is great, as they can't really start construction very easily right now anyway, so, the sCARE legal 'shinanagians' really aren't holding up anything. And actually, LCG's negotiations with JeffCo are a good thing as then everything will be worked out before construction begins and all parties will be happy... well, except you know who.
post #119 of 8459
I really have to wonder just how much longer that (S)CARE and Deb are going to be able to keep all those HOA's in the area contributing large amounts of cash to this lost cause. At some point, if I were one of the residents there, I would say "enough is enough, I am not donating money to keep Deb employed since we have already lost this case both in Congress and in the court of public opinion." It sounds like Jeffco has gotten the message and is not going to spend more money fighting this, and it sounds like Golden City Council has also seen the light. At some point the supporters of (S)CARE will convert too.
post #120 of 8459
Anyone notice a change in Channel 15 signal strength recently? I've never been able to get more than 49% and no lock. But, now I lock w/o a problem with a signal in the low to mid-70s. Did Channel 15 go full power or something?

BTW, I'm not a concerned viewer of Channel 15, I'm just trying to stay abreast of the available DTV signals in our area.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Denver, CO - OTA