• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

UHF-TV band will end at Channel 29, per FCC

Alot of TV Stations in the Bay Area has to move, But don't know where

There's like Stations in Sacramento & Stockton Area using the 20's

Some stations in SF/SJ/Oak might have to go to the VHF Band
 
Hartford/New Haven, as it stands right now with our full-powered stations [channel used for digital]

WFSB-TV (CBS) channel 3 Hartford [33]
WTNH-TV (ABC) channel 8 New Haven [10]
WUVN-TV (UNI) channel 18 Hartford [46]
WCCT-TV (CW) channel 30 Waterbury [20]
WEDH-TV (PBS) channel 24 Hartford [45]
WHPX-TV (ION) channel 26 New London [26]
WVIT-TV (NBC) channel 30 New Britain [35]
WEDN-TV (PBS) channel 53 Norwich [9]
WCTX-TV (MY) channel 59 New Haven [39]
WTIC-TV (FOX) channel 61 Hartford [31]
WEDY-TV (PBS) channel 65 New Haven [41?]
 
That said, for some viewers with antennas it won't. I'm talking about people on the US-Mexico border.

Just last week the IFT, Mexico's FCC, approved its first pair of repacking authorizations based on international agreement. One is for a Ciudad Juárez station to move to channel 30.
 
The referenced letter refers to "unlicensed wireless services". What are those?


PA and intercom systems with wireless mics. My church has one.
They typically operate on unused TV band frequencies.
 
TheBigA said:
The other problem, and I mention this a lot in my posts, is the consumer electronics industry is also part of the problem. They've been resistant to including HD in radios, they've been resistant in putting FM in phones, and they've been resistant in dealing with electrical interference. It's not just one or two companies, but the entire industry, from the head of the CEA down. Meanwhile, all I read about is how radio is losing the battle with other platforms. What do you expect? You have the government and the electronics industry working together to create a digital alternative built around the internet, and both are opposed to any logical solutions to the broadcast problems. The fact that there still is broadcasting today is amazing.
Click to expand...


True! For me, at least, it's also the ease of downloading and streaming that have made radio almost irrelevant. If NPR didn't exist, I doubt I would listen to broadcast radio at all. Music downloads and streaming are just too easy, inexpensive, and convenient. And I get to hear what I want to hear without commercials. So I never have to hear Hotel California again or suffer through one of those 7 minute stop-sets. Even with NPR, I'm finding that I'm increasingly downloading podcasts so I can time-shift programs like Fresh Air and This American Life.

Video is trending the same way for me. I'm increasingly streaming and bypassing broadcast TV. I can foresee a time when all broadcast channels are irrelevant to my viewing habits.
 
KeithE4 said:
Read the FCC Public Notice. It's pretty clear.
Click to expand...

The initial clearing target is 126 MHz. If the auction does not raise more income than it has to pay out to broadcasters, then the clearing target is dropped, the TV band gets bigger, and bidding continues.

So, no, not guaranteed. Not even a little bit.

- Trip
 
LKellerIII said:
Music downloads and streaming are just too easy, inexpensive, and convenient.
Click to expand...

That's part of the plan. These companies are getting you hooked on their service, and in the process, they're losing millions of dollars. At some point, they're going to turn their free service into a subscriber plan. The question is who can outlast who, and how will you pay? But I will tell you that a day of reckoning is coming. I've already heard a number of proposals, and none of them are good.
 
tripinva said:
The initial clearing target is 126 MHz. If the auction does not raise more income than it has to pay out to broadcasters, then the clearing target is dropped, the TV band gets bigger, and bidding continues.

So, no, not guaranteed. Not even a little bit.

- Trip
Click to expand...

Oh, OK. This is a worst-case scenario, then. I thought, because those blocks were already defined, that it was set in stone. I also got the impression that there were enough stations willing to relocate or take the money and run to allow for the 126 MHz.
 
KeithE4 said:
Oh, OK. This is a worst-case scenario, then. I thought, because those blocks were already defined, that it was set in stone. I also got the impression that there were enough stations willing to relocate or take the money and run to allow for the 126 MHz.
Click to expand...

There are enough stations, but is there enough money from the wireless side? If it costs $100 billion to buy out the TV stations but the wireless companies only put up $40 billion, then clearly supply and demand don't match. So then the number of blocks drops from 10 to 9, the TV band ends at 31 instead of 29, and bidding continues. If after that stage it still doesn't work, then it continues until it does.

- Trip
 
I agree with trip's analysis. I think the station owners, particularly investor's who bought LP Stations hoping to cash out big in the auction, might be surprised at how little they are offered. With the deepest pocketed cellular companies not participating, I think the bids might, by necessity, be somewhat low.

Many owners may conclude that they're better off staying in the TV business for now.
 
TheBigA said:
That's part of the plan. These companies are getting you hooked on their service, and in the process, they're losing millions of dollars. At some point, they're going to turn their free service into a subscriber plan. The question is who can outlast who, and how will you pay? But I will tell you that a day of reckoning is coming. I've already heard a number of proposals, and none of them are good.
Click to expand...

I'm good at "doing the math." Cutting the cord for me would definitely mean paying some subscriber fees - for HBO-GO, Showtime Anytime, Netflix, CBS All Access; and in the future perhaps Hulu and a few others. So far, I calculate that I would save about $90 - $100 per month over what I currently pay for DirecTV. Even if I had to add subscriptions for NBC, ABC and Fox, I would still save a bundle (no pun intended). But if the arithmetic changes and DirecTV becomes the cheaper alternative, I would likely stick with DirecTV

As to potential subscriber models for local TV stations or basic cable - I suspect that would be a failure - at least in my world. I'm not going to pay a fee so I can watch ABC7 News or Mornings on 2. If that day comes, I'll get my news from free online sources and NPR - I mostly do that now anyway. Most of the basic cable series I like end up on Netflix or other streaming sources a year after their premiere. I can live with that.
 
TheBigA said:
My comment was about music streaming. Just because you get it for free now doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. Same with various video feeds.
Click to expand...

I use Pandora some, but I'm not a big music streamer. I like to own :rolleyes:. So I mostly buy music through iTunes. In the 60s, I bought 45 RPM singles and record albums. That $1.00 single in 1968 would cost $6.84 today (adjusted for inflation). So that $1.29 per single download is an amazing bargain. When I purchase "albums" from iTunes, they are mostly older albums, and cost around $10. So I just did my inflation exercise for the most popular current album I could think of - Beyoncé's Lemonade. iTunes wants $16.70 for that. I recall paying $2.99 for albums at The Wherehouse in 1969. That $3.00 would adjust to $20.53 today, so Beyoncé is a bargain by comparison.

Will iTunes raise their prices at some time in the future? No doubt - but milk and eggs go up in price too.
 
LKellerIII said:
I recall paying $2.99 for albums at The Wherehouse in 1969. That $3.00 would adjust to $20.53 today, so Beyoncé is a bargain by comparison.
Click to expand...

Only if one likes Beyonce. :mad:

LKellerIII said:
Will iTunes raise their prices at some time in the future? No doubt - but milk and eggs go up in price too.
Click to expand...

Can't really compare commodities to durable products. Both eggs and milk are commodities and loss leaders in addition so their prices will fluctuate greatly from week to week and tend not to be based on the cost of production.

Incidentally, at a gathering of 20-somethings at the house last week, I asked them as a group whether they bought their music or downloaded it from free sources. I got a mixture of laughter and negative comments which I took to mean they either didn't download or they didn't think today's music was worth paying for. The other interesting thing I discovered was that several told me they don't keep their music on their devices very long. Seems they regard today's music as disposable. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.
 
TheBigA said:
The latest article I read predicts that the iTunes store will close within 5 years. They're refocusing their attention to streaming.
Click to expand...

Why close a revenue stream? There's no reason they can't focus on streaming and sell music at the same time. If iTunes closes down, I imagine that some of the other sources for purchasing music will continue to exist. If not, I'm sure I can adapt. The point for me is - in the current expanding world of the interweb, that series of tubes (as former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens conceived of them) are allowing for more choice, not less. Who knows? In 20 years, we might be able to get tiny music receivers implanted in our ears, and toggle between songs by tapping on our ear lobes.
 
LKellerIII said:
Why close a revenue stream? There's no reason they can't focus on streaming and sell music at the same time.
Click to expand...

Based on the sales trends, streaming will more than replace the revenue they get from sales, and they have a better deal on streaming. They predict digital sales will be lower than CD sales by 2020.
 
LKellerIII said:
As to potential subscriber models for local TV stations or basic cable - I suspect that would be a failure - at least in my world. I'm not going to pay a fee so I can watch ABC7 News or Mornings on 2. If that day comes, I'll get my news from free online sources and NPR - I mostly do that now anyway. Most of the basic cable series I like end up on Netflix or other streaming sources a year after their premiere. I can live with that.
Click to expand...

I live in Denver and if our local stations ( TV and/or radio ) would ever do the pay subscriber thing that would fail here as well. With so many people moving here from all parts of the country a lot of them just have no interest in local Denver media. My own boss for example is from Buffalo and has been here for quite awhile however if I would mention something like "Denver's 7 or 9 News or even KOA Newsradio he would have NO idea what I was talking about. Steffan Tubbs or Steve Kelly ?? Time to roll the eyes, put your hands on your hips and yell "WHAT EVER ..I DON"T GIVE A DAMN "!!.

On the flip side of this if this sort of thing would ever become reality I would imagine that many would be willing to pay the fee to access the local stations from their hometowns rather to deal with whatever is on the air in Denver.
 
Last edited:
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom