This is just another sign of how far into disrepair the government and "broadcasters" have let the broadcast industry fall into. They really are just cable channels that also happen to transmit a signal over the air (but you can tell that's more for PR purposes than anything else).
-
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
Fox buys KBCB-TV Bellingham
- Thread starter Bongwater
- Start date
This is just another sign of how far into disrepair the government and "broadcasters" have let the broadcast industry fall into. They really are just cable channels that also happen to transmit a signal over the air (but you can tell that's more for PR purposes than anything else).
I'm sure now FOX is going to be quickly investing in a sales department, news department, hiring a news team and starting a newscast, moving the studios to Seattle, getting a SKY FOX helicopter (and cover police chases), securing (and stealing) rights to syndicated programming...etc...for the station.
Last edited:
Newscast hosted by... Yep, you guessed it... Robin & Maynard! With Jean Enerson on the weekend.
Just kidding.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
They may be transmitting on 35, but they're still "channel 12" via PSIP, per the FCC database:
http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=35862
On cable they are 72. I guess that is part of the reason that they just identify as MeTV these days.
With regard to KVOS they also got seriously bumped around from low channel positions on the Canada side around 2001 because of a raft of new Vancouver and other BC stations that needed the lower channel numbers, particularly CIVI Victoria.
They stopped IDing with 12 sometime in the '90s. Ever since, it was "KVOS" or as it is now, "MeTV KVOS"
What kept that station going all during these years, I will never know....
Was that when they were still a CBS affiliate? (Until KIRO complained and had KVOS's CBS affiliation pulled)
this is more of a technical question for some of those versed n that sort of thing on this board. and it's question that appllies to radio and tv so its relevant. now that everything is digital does 'frequency' or dial position even matter? I was looking up KBCB and they are on 'virtual 24' but there HD signal now the only signal is actually on 19. How does this work? In the old days if there was a tv station on channel 12 in bellingham and one on 12 in portland they could only get so close. what does this 'virtual' stuff mean? Im talking over the air signals not the position on the cable box. Part of why I am asking is that there is ALSO a channel 24 in Renton it's low powered spanish station so if they are on the same frequency would this prevent the b-ham signal from coming into the market? or alternatively if they also bought the LP Renton station then would they be on the same channel now in Seattle by being in both place? or do they just change the pointers to channel 19 can they even do that?
Most of the virtual channels are pre-assigned, based on a station's "legacy" channel, that is, their pre-transition channel. There are a few exceptions, but if Fox buys channel 24, their virtual channel will be 24, even though their frequency is 19. (The FCC did this to keep it familiar for viewers: if I've watched something on channel 3 all these years, you're suddenly gonna make it channel 38? The stations themselves also wanted to maintain their familiar branding.
Does the channel number matter? Technically, no. But in almost every case, the stations on "familiar" virtual channels 2-13 still outperform others in ratings, and therefore, in dollars.
Does the channel number matter? Technically, no. But in almost every case, the stations on "familiar" virtual channels 2-13 still outperform others in ratings, and therefore, in dollars.
I wonder if FOX could do the same stunt and strip Tribune out of it's FOX affiliation in Harrisburg. Harrisburg is part of the Eagles viewing area, extending from Philadelphia, so it'd be more lucrative for viewers to watch a FOX owned station. Maybe it'd just buy WTVE 51 in Reading, which by some accounts is Central PA, although not classified in the Central PA Harrisburg/Lancaster/Lebanon/York DMA. It'd be a double win in for FOX that such acquisition could be considered as a duopoly with WTXF rather than a new market addition with any ownership cap implications. One issue though is if the Baltimore Sinclair FOX station becomes the closest FOX affiliate rather than a Reading, PA FOX affiliate in York County, PA, but even in such scenario (where WBFF and WTVE get both carried on cable in York County for example), Fox might still benefit without Tribune the middle man but with a Fox owned station exclusively for the rest of the Harrisburg market minus York County.
Last edited:
There isn't enough revenue at stake. Seattle is a very, very special case.
The way it was explained to me is that, in the analog days, there really were no channels. There were just a range of frequencies. The channel numbers were so you could remember them more easily as well as so the TV could have a dial for a tuner. Having channel 2 made more sense than a range of frequencies, and "2" could easily fit on a dial while the frequency range could not. The map of channel to frequency was predetermined at the factory. In the digital world, the map of channel to frequency is done on your device. So, which frequencies the channel occupies don't matter. You scan your set, and it maps the frequencies to the appropriate channel based on the data it receives when scanning.
On the subject of engineering, there is a difference between the virtual channel and the actual channel in terms of coverage. Channels in the low VHF band could easily travel 100 miles and still be received because of the longer wavelength, while channels in the UHF band travel a lesser distance. There was a trade-off, it was extremely difficult and or impossible to receive those low band VHF signals without a large antenna on your roof to pick up such a large wavelength, while UHF signals could be seen even with the built in rabbit ears on a television.
I think that low VHF's worked extremely well. They permeated difficult terrain with ease, and were free of ghosting. If you happened to be running a blender in your kitchen you might see a few little electrical specs on the screen, but that was it.
I think that low VHF's worked extremely well. They permeated difficult terrain with ease, and were free of ghosting. If you happened to be running a blender in your kitchen you might see a few little electrical specs on the screen, but that was it.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...affiliate-agreement-in-seattle-279554472.html
So what happens now with KBCB?
At this point, I expect KBCB probably becomes auction bait again. Fox hasn't closed on the buyout.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
I think that's what ford was trying to say ... UHF has always been exponentially less vulnerable to electrical interference, which is also why digital television works better in that band. Where analog VHF would -- again, as ford put it -- have "a few little electrical specs on the screen" from interference, those little specks can cause a digital receiver to fail completely at decoding the signal. Digital TV is an "all or nothing" scenario.
- Status