-
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 returns to South Texas
- Thread starter sgthree
- Start date
> It's been three years, but the RGV finally has a Fox
> affiliate again- Fox Channel 2 XHRIO. I think they might be
> a UPN secondary affiliate too. This used to be a UPN station
> a few years ago. Before that it was Telemundo.
>
Is there a website yet?<P ID="signature">______________
FCC=Freakin' Clear Channel</P>
> affiliate again- Fox Channel 2 XHRIO. I think they might be
> a UPN secondary affiliate too. This used to be a UPN station
> a few years ago. Before that it was Telemundo.
>
Is there a website yet?<P ID="signature">______________
FCC=Freakin' Clear Channel</P>
> > It's been three years, but the RGV finally has a Fox
> > affiliate again- Fox Channel 2 XHRIO. I think they might
> be
> > a UPN secondary affiliate too. This used to be a UPN
> station
> > a few years ago. Before that it was Telemundo.
> >
>
> Is there a website yet?
>
Great. Now when is Laredo going to get an ABC affiliate?
> > affiliate again- Fox Channel 2 XHRIO. I think they might
> be
> > a UPN secondary affiliate too. This used to be a UPN
> station
> > a few years ago. Before that it was Telemundo.
> >
>
> Is there a website yet?
>
Great. Now when is Laredo going to get an ABC affiliate?
> Great. Now when is Laredo going to get an ABC affiliate?
I wouldn't count on that one happening any time soon. Not from a market which only has 2 English-speaking radio stations. KLDO-TV was an ABC affiliate when they first signed on, but switched to Telemundo a couple of years later.
I wouldn't count on that one happening any time soon. Not from a market which only has 2 English-speaking radio stations. KLDO-TV was an ABC affiliate when they first signed on, but switched to Telemundo a couple of years later.
> > Great. Now when is Laredo going to get an ABC affiliate?
>
> I wouldn't count on that one happening any time soon. Not
> from a market which only has 2 English-speaking radio
> stations. KLDO-TV was an ABC affiliate when they first
> signed on, but switched to Telemundo a couple of years
> later.
>
Could a Mexican station pick up ABC for Laredo?
>
> I wouldn't count on that one happening any time soon. Not
> from a market which only has 2 English-speaking radio
> stations. KLDO-TV was an ABC affiliate when they first
> signed on, but switched to Telemundo a couple of years
> later.
>
Could a Mexican station pick up ABC for Laredo?
> > Could a Mexican station pick up ABC for Laredo?
>
> Perhaps they could, but I don't know how feasible it would
> be. Laredo recieves it's ABC on cable via San Antonio's
> KSAT. Zapata's (45 miles away) cable recieves it's ABC via
> Corpus Christi's KIII.
>
There's a slight problem. XETV/6 Tijuana, which is a Fox
affiliate today, used to be the ABC affiliate for San Diego.
During the Nixon administration, the FCC
decided that American networks couldn't have affiliates from
outside the U.S. AFAIK, the FCC does not treat Fox, UPN, or
the WB as networks, so the rules are different for them. ABC
would still be unable to sign up an affiliate in Mexico.
(NOTE: ABC, CBS, and NBC ARE allowed to have affiliates in
Hamilton, Bermuda, which is not even a U.S. territory.)
>
> Perhaps they could, but I don't know how feasible it would
> be. Laredo recieves it's ABC on cable via San Antonio's
> KSAT. Zapata's (45 miles away) cable recieves it's ABC via
> Corpus Christi's KIII.
>
There's a slight problem. XETV/6 Tijuana, which is a Fox
affiliate today, used to be the ABC affiliate for San Diego.
During the Nixon administration, the FCC
decided that American networks couldn't have affiliates from
outside the U.S. AFAIK, the FCC does not treat Fox, UPN, or
the WB as networks, so the rules are different for them. ABC
would still be unable to sign up an affiliate in Mexico.
(NOTE: ABC, CBS, and NBC ARE allowed to have affiliates in
Hamilton, Bermuda, which is not even a U.S. territory.)
> (NOTE: ABC, CBS, and NBC ARE allowed to have affiliates in
> Hamilton, Bermuda, which is not even a U.S. territory.)
>
Someone mentioned that Aruba has an NBC affiliate of their own.
Apparently, US networks can have foreign affiliates, with approval from the FCC and the country where the tranny is licensed.
> Hamilton, Bermuda, which is not even a U.S. territory.)
>
Someone mentioned that Aruba has an NBC affiliate of their own.
Apparently, US networks can have foreign affiliates, with approval from the FCC and the country where the tranny is licensed.
> > > Could a Mexican station pick up ABC for Laredo?
> >
> > Perhaps they could, but I don't know how feasible it would
>
> > be. Laredo recieves it's ABC on cable via San Antonio's
> > KSAT. Zapata's (45 miles away) cable recieves it's ABC
> via
> > Corpus Christi's KIII.
> >
> There's a slight problem. XETV/6 Tijuana, which is a Fox
> affiliate today, used to be the ABC affiliate for San Diego.
>
> During the Nixon administration, the FCC
> decided that American networks couldn't have affiliates from
>
> outside the U.S. AFAIK, the FCC does not treat Fox, UPN, or
The ruling was to the effect that if a US independent station wanted to affiliate with one of the networks (then only being ABC, CBS, NBC), that
would take priority over a foreign TV station. At the time,
then-KCST 39 was independent and XETV was ABC. It's new owners fought
for several years to get the ABC affiliation. In 1972, the FCC ruled that
since there was an unaffiliated US station that wanted the affiliation,
that should take precedence over affiliating with a foreign broadcaster.
Thus, ABC was forced to move to affiliate with KCST.
I suppose technically today KUSI 51 could challenge for the Fox affiliation
since it is independent (having dropped its affiliation from UPN not longer
after UPN came on).
> the WB as networks, so the rules are different for them.
> ABC
> would still be unable to sign up an affiliate in Mexico.
Technically in the FCC rules, a network is an "entity that offers
programming on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at
least 25 affiliates in 10 or more states."
Fox, WB, Univision, Pax/i qualify as networks. Technically, UPN doesn't since
it only offers 12 hours of programming (10 in prime + 2 hour weekend
afternoon movie). Univision now has full-power TV affiliates in more
than a dozen states (OR, CA, UT, NV, AZ, NM, CO, IL, TX, NC, FL, GA, OH,
NJ (the Philly and NYC stations are licensed to NJ cities), MA, CT) and
Puerto Rico.
Originally, Fox was wary of being a "network" since the rules forbidding
networks from owning and syndicated their shows were still in effect when
it was born. Those rules, of course, don't exist today. The network
rule today usually only serves to define must-carry debates with out-of-town
signals.
For Fox, in particular, the statement that the FCC does not treat if like
a network is not true. For digital TV conversion, it made the requirement
that the "big 4" affiliates had to meet all the early conversion dates.
For satellite TV, you have to get a waiver to get an out-of-market Fox
affiliate, just like an out-of-market CBS affiliate. You don't for the
WB and UPN (i.e. you can get WWOR, WSBK, WPIX, KTLA, KWGN whether or not
you have a local WB or UPN affiliate). So, at least for the WB, it is
still treated in some cases as a semi-network.
> >
> > Perhaps they could, but I don't know how feasible it would
>
> > be. Laredo recieves it's ABC on cable via San Antonio's
> > KSAT. Zapata's (45 miles away) cable recieves it's ABC
> via
> > Corpus Christi's KIII.
> >
> There's a slight problem. XETV/6 Tijuana, which is a Fox
> affiliate today, used to be the ABC affiliate for San Diego.
>
> During the Nixon administration, the FCC
> decided that American networks couldn't have affiliates from
>
> outside the U.S. AFAIK, the FCC does not treat Fox, UPN, or
The ruling was to the effect that if a US independent station wanted to affiliate with one of the networks (then only being ABC, CBS, NBC), that
would take priority over a foreign TV station. At the time,
then-KCST 39 was independent and XETV was ABC. It's new owners fought
for several years to get the ABC affiliation. In 1972, the FCC ruled that
since there was an unaffiliated US station that wanted the affiliation,
that should take precedence over affiliating with a foreign broadcaster.
Thus, ABC was forced to move to affiliate with KCST.
I suppose technically today KUSI 51 could challenge for the Fox affiliation
since it is independent (having dropped its affiliation from UPN not longer
after UPN came on).
> the WB as networks, so the rules are different for them.
> ABC
> would still be unable to sign up an affiliate in Mexico.
Technically in the FCC rules, a network is an "entity that offers
programming on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at
least 25 affiliates in 10 or more states."
Fox, WB, Univision, Pax/i qualify as networks. Technically, UPN doesn't since
it only offers 12 hours of programming (10 in prime + 2 hour weekend
afternoon movie). Univision now has full-power TV affiliates in more
than a dozen states (OR, CA, UT, NV, AZ, NM, CO, IL, TX, NC, FL, GA, OH,
NJ (the Philly and NYC stations are licensed to NJ cities), MA, CT) and
Puerto Rico.
Originally, Fox was wary of being a "network" since the rules forbidding
networks from owning and syndicated their shows were still in effect when
it was born. Those rules, of course, don't exist today. The network
rule today usually only serves to define must-carry debates with out-of-town
signals.
For Fox, in particular, the statement that the FCC does not treat if like
a network is not true. For digital TV conversion, it made the requirement
that the "big 4" affiliates had to meet all the early conversion dates.
For satellite TV, you have to get a waiver to get an out-of-market Fox
affiliate, just like an out-of-market CBS affiliate. You don't for the
WB and UPN (i.e. you can get WWOR, WSBK, WPIX, KTLA, KWGN whether or not
you have a local WB or UPN affiliate). So, at least for the WB, it is
still treated in some cases as a semi-network.
> > > > Could a Mexican station pick up ABC for Laredo?
> > >
> > > Perhaps they could, but I don't know how feasible it
> would
> >
> > > be. Laredo recieves it's ABC on cable via San Antonio's
>
> > > KSAT. Zapata's (45 miles away) cable recieves it's ABC
> > via
> > > Corpus Christi's KIII.
> > >
> > There's a slight problem. XETV/6 Tijuana, which is a Fox
> > affiliate today, used to be the ABC affiliate for San
> Diego.
> >
> > During the Nixon administration, the FCC
> > decided that American networks couldn't have affiliates
> from
> >
> > outside the U.S. AFAIK, the FCC does not treat Fox, UPN,
> or
>
> The ruling was to the effect that if a US independent
> station wanted to affiliate with one of the networks (then
> only being ABC, CBS, NBC), that
> would take priority over a foreign TV station. At the time,
>
> then-KCST 39 was independent and XETV was ABC. It's new
> owners fought
> for several years to get the ABC affiliation. In 1972, the
> FCC ruled that
> since there was an unaffiliated US station that wanted the
> affiliation,
> that should take precedence over affiliating with a foreign
> broadcaster.
> Thus, ABC was forced to move to affiliate with KCST.
>
> I suppose technically today KUSI 51 could challenge for the
> Fox affiliation
> since it is independent (having dropped its affiliation from
> UPN not longer
> after UPN came on).
>
> > the WB as networks, so the rules are different for them.
> > ABC
> > would still be unable to sign up an affiliate in Mexico.
>
> Technically in the FCC rules, a network is an "entity that
> offers
> programming on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week
> to at
> least 25 affiliates in 10 or more states."
>
> Fox, WB, Univision, Pax/i qualify as networks. Technically,
> UPN doesn't since
> it only offers 12 hours of programming (10 in prime + 2 hour
> weekend
> afternoon movie). Univision now has full-power TV affiliates
> in more
> than a dozen states (OR, CA, UT, NV, AZ, NM, CO, IL, TX, NC,
> FL, GA, OH,
> NJ (the Philly and NYC stations are licensed to NJ cities),
> MA, CT) and
> Puerto Rico.
>
> Originally, Fox was wary of being a "network" since the
> rules forbidding
> networks from owning and syndicated their shows were still
> in effect when
> it was born. Those rules, of course, don't exist today.
> The network
> rule today usually only serves to define must-carry debates
> with out-of-town
> signals.
>
> For Fox, in particular, the statement that the FCC does not
> treat if like
> a network is not true. For digital TV conversion, it made
> the requirement
> that the "big 4" affiliates had to meet all the early
> conversion dates.
> For satellite TV, you have to get a waiver to get an
> out-of-market Fox
> affiliate, just like an out-of-market CBS affiliate. You
> don't for the
> WB and UPN (i.e. you can get WWOR, WSBK, WPIX, KTLA, KWGN
> whether or not
> you have a local WB or UPN affiliate). So, at least for the
> WB, it is
> still treated in some cases as a semi-network.
>
I should have figured that the FCC would now treat Fox as
a full-fledged network; obviously I'm not up on my FCC rules.
I'm also surprised, given what you've said here, that KUSI
doesn't challenge XETV for the Fox affiliation in San Diego.
But back to the issue of a Mexican station becoming Laredo's
ABC affiliate. What's close enough? Is there an unaffiliated
station in Nuevo Laredo?
> > >
> > > Perhaps they could, but I don't know how feasible it
> would
> >
> > > be. Laredo recieves it's ABC on cable via San Antonio's
>
> > > KSAT. Zapata's (45 miles away) cable recieves it's ABC
> > via
> > > Corpus Christi's KIII.
> > >
> > There's a slight problem. XETV/6 Tijuana, which is a Fox
> > affiliate today, used to be the ABC affiliate for San
> Diego.
> >
> > During the Nixon administration, the FCC
> > decided that American networks couldn't have affiliates
> from
> >
> > outside the U.S. AFAIK, the FCC does not treat Fox, UPN,
> or
>
> The ruling was to the effect that if a US independent
> station wanted to affiliate with one of the networks (then
> only being ABC, CBS, NBC), that
> would take priority over a foreign TV station. At the time,
>
> then-KCST 39 was independent and XETV was ABC. It's new
> owners fought
> for several years to get the ABC affiliation. In 1972, the
> FCC ruled that
> since there was an unaffiliated US station that wanted the
> affiliation,
> that should take precedence over affiliating with a foreign
> broadcaster.
> Thus, ABC was forced to move to affiliate with KCST.
>
> I suppose technically today KUSI 51 could challenge for the
> Fox affiliation
> since it is independent (having dropped its affiliation from
> UPN not longer
> after UPN came on).
>
> > the WB as networks, so the rules are different for them.
> > ABC
> > would still be unable to sign up an affiliate in Mexico.
>
> Technically in the FCC rules, a network is an "entity that
> offers
> programming on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week
> to at
> least 25 affiliates in 10 or more states."
>
> Fox, WB, Univision, Pax/i qualify as networks. Technically,
> UPN doesn't since
> it only offers 12 hours of programming (10 in prime + 2 hour
> weekend
> afternoon movie). Univision now has full-power TV affiliates
> in more
> than a dozen states (OR, CA, UT, NV, AZ, NM, CO, IL, TX, NC,
> FL, GA, OH,
> NJ (the Philly and NYC stations are licensed to NJ cities),
> MA, CT) and
> Puerto Rico.
>
> Originally, Fox was wary of being a "network" since the
> rules forbidding
> networks from owning and syndicated their shows were still
> in effect when
> it was born. Those rules, of course, don't exist today.
> The network
> rule today usually only serves to define must-carry debates
> with out-of-town
> signals.
>
> For Fox, in particular, the statement that the FCC does not
> treat if like
> a network is not true. For digital TV conversion, it made
> the requirement
> that the "big 4" affiliates had to meet all the early
> conversion dates.
> For satellite TV, you have to get a waiver to get an
> out-of-market Fox
> affiliate, just like an out-of-market CBS affiliate. You
> don't for the
> WB and UPN (i.e. you can get WWOR, WSBK, WPIX, KTLA, KWGN
> whether or not
> you have a local WB or UPN affiliate). So, at least for the
> WB, it is
> still treated in some cases as a semi-network.
>
I should have figured that the FCC would now treat Fox as
a full-fledged network; obviously I'm not up on my FCC rules.
I'm also surprised, given what you've said here, that KUSI
doesn't challenge XETV for the Fox affiliation in San Diego.
But back to the issue of a Mexican station becoming Laredo's
ABC affiliate. What's close enough? Is there an unaffiliated
station in Nuevo Laredo?
> But back to the issue of a Mexican station becoming Laredo's
>
> ABC affiliate. What's close enough? Is there an
> unaffiliated
> station in Nuevo Laredo?
>
I believe XEFE-TV 2 and XHLAR 57 Nuevo Laredo are technically
Spanish-language independents, but carry Televisa programming.
I think Nuevo Laredo's other channels -- XHBR 11, XHLNA 21, XHLAT 33,
XHNAT 45 -- all relay either one of the Televisa channels
or Azteca channels. XHLAR was the former Fox/UPN XHFTX.
I doubt any are looking to become ABC affiliates. I imagine
80% of the Laredo/Nuevo Laredo area is Spanish-dominant, which
is why there are so few English radio and TV stations.
I would imagine the only way there would be an over-the-air
ABC affiliate would be if:
(1) KVTV or KGNS use their digital facilities to create a 2nd
channel that is an ABC affiliate. ABC WTOK 11 Meridian MS, for
example, will create a Fox affiliate this fall for the market
via it's digital signal. WTOK-DT 11.1 remains ABC; WTOK-DT 11.2
will be Fox. It's owner, Gray, has done this to create UPN
affiliates in several markets where it owns the local CBS
affiliate. KOSA 7 Midland/Odessa and KFDA 10 Amarillo have similarly
created UPN affiliates via digital multicast. In KFDA-DT's case,
it multicasts CBS, UPN, and a relay of its Telemundo LPTV, KTMO-LP 36.
(2) Someone buys a low power TV station or starts one that serves
as the local affiliate. More and more you see these in markets
with not enough full-power stations...KMAY-LP 23 (NBC) and KRHD-LP
40 (ABC "ABC40") Bryan/College Station, KXTS-LP 41 (NBC) Victoria, KUIL-LP
64 (Fox) Beaumont, KFXL-LP 30 (Fox "Fox 30") and KLSB-LP 53 (NBC "NBC53")
Lufkin/Nacogdoches, WBXH-CA 39 (UPN "the Block") Baton Rouge, WILM-LP 10
(CBS/UPN) Wilmington NC, WVAW-LP 16 (ABC "ABC16") and WAHU-LP 27 (Fox
"Fox 27") Charlottesville VA, KBGF-LP 50 (NBC "NBC6/50") Great Falls MT,
WOHL-LP 25 (Fox "Fox Lima") and WLMO-LP 38 (CBS "CBS Lima") Lima OH,
WSHM-LP 67 (CBS "CBS3") Springfield MA, WBND-LP 57 (ABC "ABC57") South
Bend IN, etc.
>
> ABC affiliate. What's close enough? Is there an
> unaffiliated
> station in Nuevo Laredo?
>
I believe XEFE-TV 2 and XHLAR 57 Nuevo Laredo are technically
Spanish-language independents, but carry Televisa programming.
I think Nuevo Laredo's other channels -- XHBR 11, XHLNA 21, XHLAT 33,
XHNAT 45 -- all relay either one of the Televisa channels
or Azteca channels. XHLAR was the former Fox/UPN XHFTX.
I doubt any are looking to become ABC affiliates. I imagine
80% of the Laredo/Nuevo Laredo area is Spanish-dominant, which
is why there are so few English radio and TV stations.
I would imagine the only way there would be an over-the-air
ABC affiliate would be if:
(1) KVTV or KGNS use their digital facilities to create a 2nd
channel that is an ABC affiliate. ABC WTOK 11 Meridian MS, for
example, will create a Fox affiliate this fall for the market
via it's digital signal. WTOK-DT 11.1 remains ABC; WTOK-DT 11.2
will be Fox. It's owner, Gray, has done this to create UPN
affiliates in several markets where it owns the local CBS
affiliate. KOSA 7 Midland/Odessa and KFDA 10 Amarillo have similarly
created UPN affiliates via digital multicast. In KFDA-DT's case,
it multicasts CBS, UPN, and a relay of its Telemundo LPTV, KTMO-LP 36.
(2) Someone buys a low power TV station or starts one that serves
as the local affiliate. More and more you see these in markets
with not enough full-power stations...KMAY-LP 23 (NBC) and KRHD-LP
40 (ABC "ABC40") Bryan/College Station, KXTS-LP 41 (NBC) Victoria, KUIL-LP
64 (Fox) Beaumont, KFXL-LP 30 (Fox "Fox 30") and KLSB-LP 53 (NBC "NBC53")
Lufkin/Nacogdoches, WBXH-CA 39 (UPN "the Block") Baton Rouge, WILM-LP 10
(CBS/UPN) Wilmington NC, WVAW-LP 16 (ABC "ABC16") and WAHU-LP 27 (Fox
"Fox 27") Charlottesville VA, KBGF-LP 50 (NBC "NBC6/50") Great Falls MT,
WOHL-LP 25 (Fox "Fox Lima") and WLMO-LP 38 (CBS "CBS Lima") Lima OH,
WSHM-LP 67 (CBS "CBS3") Springfield MA, WBND-LP 57 (ABC "ABC57") South
Bend IN, etc.
> > But back to the issue of a Mexican station becoming
> Laredo's
> >
> > ABC affiliate. What's close enough? Is there an
> > unaffiliated
> > station in Nuevo Laredo?
> >
>
> I believe XEFE-TV 2 and XHLAR 57 Nuevo Laredo are
> technically
> Spanish-language independents, but carry Televisa
> programming.
> I think Nuevo Laredo's other channels -- XHBR 11, XHLNA 21,
> XHLAT 33,
> XHNAT 45 -- all relay either one of the Televisa channels
> or Azteca channels. XHLAR was the former Fox/UPN XHFTX.
>
> I doubt any are looking to become ABC affiliates. I imagine
>
> 80% of the Laredo/Nuevo Laredo area is Spanish-dominant,
> which
> is why there are so few English radio and TV stations.
>
> I would imagine the only way there would be an over-the-air
> ABC affiliate would be if:
> (1) KVTV or KGNS use their digital facilities to create a
> 2nd
> channel that is an ABC affiliate. ABC WTOK 11 Meridian MS,
> for
> example, will create a Fox affiliate this fall for the
> market
> via it's digital signal. WTOK-DT 11.1 remains ABC; WTOK-DT
> 11.2
> will be Fox. It's owner, Gray, has done this to create UPN
> affiliates in several markets where it owns the local CBS
> affiliate. KOSA 7 Midland/Odessa and KFDA 10 Amarillo have
> similarly
> created UPN affiliates via digital multicast. In KFDA-DT's
> case,
> it multicasts CBS, UPN, and a relay of its Telemundo LPTV,
> KTMO-LP 36.
>
> (2) Someone buys a low power TV station or starts one that
> serves
> as the local affiliate. More and more you see these in
> markets
> with not enough full-power stations...KMAY-LP 23 (NBC) and
> KRHD-LP
> 40 (ABC "ABC40") Bryan/College Station, KXTS-LP 41 (NBC)
> Victoria, KUIL-LP
> 64 (Fox) Beaumont, KFXL-LP 30 (Fox "Fox 30") and KLSB-LP 53
> (NBC "NBC53")
> Lufkin/Nacogdoches, WBXH-CA 39 (UPN "the Block") Baton
> Rouge, WILM-LP 10
> (CBS/UPN) Wilmington NC, WVAW-LP 16 (ABC "ABC16") and
> WAHU-LP 27 (Fox
> "Fox 27") Charlottesville VA, KBGF-LP 50 (NBC "NBC6/50")
> Great Falls MT,
> WOHL-LP 25 (Fox "Fox Lima") and WLMO-LP 38 (CBS "CBS Lima")
> Lima OH,
> WSHM-LP 67 (CBS "CBS3") Springfield MA, WBND-LP 57 (ABC
> "ABC57") South
> Bend IN, etc.
>
WCTI/12 Greenville/New Bern/Washington, NC, uses one digital
channel for ABC and one for UPN. That sounds like a good idea
for KGNS or KVTV.
> Laredo's
> >
> > ABC affiliate. What's close enough? Is there an
> > unaffiliated
> > station in Nuevo Laredo?
> >
>
> I believe XEFE-TV 2 and XHLAR 57 Nuevo Laredo are
> technically
> Spanish-language independents, but carry Televisa
> programming.
> I think Nuevo Laredo's other channels -- XHBR 11, XHLNA 21,
> XHLAT 33,
> XHNAT 45 -- all relay either one of the Televisa channels
> or Azteca channels. XHLAR was the former Fox/UPN XHFTX.
>
> I doubt any are looking to become ABC affiliates. I imagine
>
> 80% of the Laredo/Nuevo Laredo area is Spanish-dominant,
> which
> is why there are so few English radio and TV stations.
>
> I would imagine the only way there would be an over-the-air
> ABC affiliate would be if:
> (1) KVTV or KGNS use their digital facilities to create a
> 2nd
> channel that is an ABC affiliate. ABC WTOK 11 Meridian MS,
> for
> example, will create a Fox affiliate this fall for the
> market
> via it's digital signal. WTOK-DT 11.1 remains ABC; WTOK-DT
> 11.2
> will be Fox. It's owner, Gray, has done this to create UPN
> affiliates in several markets where it owns the local CBS
> affiliate. KOSA 7 Midland/Odessa and KFDA 10 Amarillo have
> similarly
> created UPN affiliates via digital multicast. In KFDA-DT's
> case,
> it multicasts CBS, UPN, and a relay of its Telemundo LPTV,
> KTMO-LP 36.
>
> (2) Someone buys a low power TV station or starts one that
> serves
> as the local affiliate. More and more you see these in
> markets
> with not enough full-power stations...KMAY-LP 23 (NBC) and
> KRHD-LP
> 40 (ABC "ABC40") Bryan/College Station, KXTS-LP 41 (NBC)
> Victoria, KUIL-LP
> 64 (Fox) Beaumont, KFXL-LP 30 (Fox "Fox 30") and KLSB-LP 53
> (NBC "NBC53")
> Lufkin/Nacogdoches, WBXH-CA 39 (UPN "the Block") Baton
> Rouge, WILM-LP 10
> (CBS/UPN) Wilmington NC, WVAW-LP 16 (ABC "ABC16") and
> WAHU-LP 27 (Fox
> "Fox 27") Charlottesville VA, KBGF-LP 50 (NBC "NBC6/50")
> Great Falls MT,
> WOHL-LP 25 (Fox "Fox Lima") and WLMO-LP 38 (CBS "CBS Lima")
> Lima OH,
> WSHM-LP 67 (CBS "CBS3") Springfield MA, WBND-LP 57 (ABC
> "ABC57") South
> Bend IN, etc.
>
WCTI/12 Greenville/New Bern/Washington, NC, uses one digital
channel for ABC and one for UPN. That sounds like a good idea
for KGNS or KVTV.
Re: What happened with XETV
I took excerpts from the FCC Website.
The Communications Act of 1934 (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., subjects radio and television stations that broadcast WITHIN the United States to licensing by the FCC, which must inquire as to whether the "public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the granting" of a license application.
Because of the possibility that domestic broadcasters in some areas could evade the Act's requirements by transmitting their signals to a foreign station for rebroadcast into the United States, Section 325(c) expressly prohibits such transmissions WITHOUT an FCC permit. This permit is called a "325 permit"
XETV has for many years broadcast programming from its Tijuana, Mexico facilities to viewers in San Diego, California. In 1956, the FCC granted the 325 application of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. ("ABC") to transmit programming to XETV for rebroadcast into the domestic market.
When ABC filed a renewal application in 1968, a new domestic station, KCST, filed a petition to deny the permit. Based in part on a finding that XETV's programming was "deficient in that it renders no local service meeting the needs and interests of the community," the FCC denied ABC's renewal application.
More recently, XETV has served as the San Diego affiliate of the Fox Television network. Until 1994, Fox and XETV relied on a practice called "bicycling": Fox transmitted its programming to a U.S. receiving station, which made tapes and physically transported these across the border for XETV to rebroadcast into San Diego.
This practice legally avoided the 325 licensing regime, but did not allow live broadcasts of any sort, which became a problem when Fox acquired the right to broadcast live games of the National Football League in 1994. Fox accordingly sought a 325 permit for cross-border electronic transmission.
A domestic San Diego broadcaster, Channel 51, filed a petition to deny Fox's 325 application, arguing that XETV's "issue-responsive programming" was deficient.
The FCC eventually granted Fox's permit, in the process reviewing the ABC 1972 standards in light of the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA"). The FCC concluded that NAFTA had invalidated its prior position, expressed in ABC 1972, that "all of the public interest criteria used in domestic proceedings
Under its reading of NAFTA, the FCC found the issue-responsive programming requirement discriminatory and unnecessarily restrictive of trade, and consequently held that it should no longer apply in 325 proceedings.
This was again challenged in court by Channel 51. The Appeals court ruled that the FCC was wrong about NAFTA.
On remand, the FCC reconsidered its position, and decided to reaffirm its original position articulated in ABC 1972, namely, that its "Section 325 analysis must include an analysis of the public interest
The FCC then granted the Fox application for a 325 permit, but conditioned this grant "on XETV's provision of programming that meets the Commission's issue-responsive requirement during the five year authorization term."
If and when Fox seeks renewal of its permit, it "will be required to show ... whether the programming broadcast by XETV has met the issue-responsive requirement during the term of the initial authorization.
So that is what happened and where it stands. Basically Fox got a permit to transmit from Mexico (a 325 permit) and this is on the condition that XETV meets the qualification of whether XETV is serving the "public interest" of San Diego. <P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
I took excerpts from the FCC Website.
The Communications Act of 1934 (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., subjects radio and television stations that broadcast WITHIN the United States to licensing by the FCC, which must inquire as to whether the "public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the granting" of a license application.
Because of the possibility that domestic broadcasters in some areas could evade the Act's requirements by transmitting their signals to a foreign station for rebroadcast into the United States, Section 325(c) expressly prohibits such transmissions WITHOUT an FCC permit. This permit is called a "325 permit"
XETV has for many years broadcast programming from its Tijuana, Mexico facilities to viewers in San Diego, California. In 1956, the FCC granted the 325 application of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. ("ABC") to transmit programming to XETV for rebroadcast into the domestic market.
When ABC filed a renewal application in 1968, a new domestic station, KCST, filed a petition to deny the permit. Based in part on a finding that XETV's programming was "deficient in that it renders no local service meeting the needs and interests of the community," the FCC denied ABC's renewal application.
More recently, XETV has served as the San Diego affiliate of the Fox Television network. Until 1994, Fox and XETV relied on a practice called "bicycling": Fox transmitted its programming to a U.S. receiving station, which made tapes and physically transported these across the border for XETV to rebroadcast into San Diego.
This practice legally avoided the 325 licensing regime, but did not allow live broadcasts of any sort, which became a problem when Fox acquired the right to broadcast live games of the National Football League in 1994. Fox accordingly sought a 325 permit for cross-border electronic transmission.
A domestic San Diego broadcaster, Channel 51, filed a petition to deny Fox's 325 application, arguing that XETV's "issue-responsive programming" was deficient.
The FCC eventually granted Fox's permit, in the process reviewing the ABC 1972 standards in light of the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA"). The FCC concluded that NAFTA had invalidated its prior position, expressed in ABC 1972, that "all of the public interest criteria used in domestic proceedings
Under its reading of NAFTA, the FCC found the issue-responsive programming requirement discriminatory and unnecessarily restrictive of trade, and consequently held that it should no longer apply in 325 proceedings.
This was again challenged in court by Channel 51. The Appeals court ruled that the FCC was wrong about NAFTA.
On remand, the FCC reconsidered its position, and decided to reaffirm its original position articulated in ABC 1972, namely, that its "Section 325 analysis must include an analysis of the public interest
The FCC then granted the Fox application for a 325 permit, but conditioned this grant "on XETV's provision of programming that meets the Commission's issue-responsive requirement during the five year authorization term."
If and when Fox seeks renewal of its permit, it "will be required to show ... whether the programming broadcast by XETV has met the issue-responsive requirement during the term of the initial authorization.
So that is what happened and where it stands. Basically Fox got a permit to transmit from Mexico (a 325 permit) and this is on the condition that XETV meets the qualification of whether XETV is serving the "public interest" of San Diego. <P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
Re: What happened with XETV
> Basically Fox
> got a permit to transmit from Mexico (a 325 permit) and this
> is on the condition that XETV meets the qualification of
> whether XETV is serving the "public interest" of San Diego.
>
Yet they also have to serve the "public interest" of Mexico, as well. Recently, when I visited Comic Con in San Diego, I noticed that XETV carried PSAs from the Mexican government, translated into English, during their morning newscasts. Considering the obvious about Mexico, the ads are just like peeing into the wind, yet XETV (and probably XHUPN as well) are obligated tro carry them, as part of the requirements for the Mexican license.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by rugrats1 on 08/06/05 09:51 PM.</FONT></P>
> Basically Fox
> got a permit to transmit from Mexico (a 325 permit) and this
> is on the condition that XETV meets the qualification of
> whether XETV is serving the "public interest" of San Diego.
>
Yet they also have to serve the "public interest" of Mexico, as well. Recently, when I visited Comic Con in San Diego, I noticed that XETV carried PSAs from the Mexican government, translated into English, during their morning newscasts. Considering the obvious about Mexico, the ads are just like peeing into the wind, yet XETV (and probably XHUPN as well) are obligated tro carry them, as part of the requirements for the Mexican license.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by rugrats1 on 08/06/05 09:51 PM.</FONT></P>
Re: What happened with XETV
> > Basically Fox
> > got a permit to transmit from Mexico (a 325 permit) and
> this
> > is on the condition that XETV meets the qualification of
> > whether XETV is serving the "public interest" of San
> Diego.
> >
>
> Yet they also have to serve the "public interest" of Mexico,
> as well. Recently, when I visited Comic Con in San Diego, I
> noticed that XETV carried PSAs from the Mexican government,
> translated into English, during their morning newscasts.
> Considering the obvious about Mexico, the ads are just like
> peeing into the wind, yet XETV (and probably XHUPN as well)
> are obligated tro carry them, as part of the requirements
> for the Mexican license.
>
And I suspect that XETV will provide their "proof" of serving the "public interest" of San Diego through their San Diego-based news programming...
> > Basically Fox
> > got a permit to transmit from Mexico (a 325 permit) and
> this
> > is on the condition that XETV meets the qualification of
> > whether XETV is serving the "public interest" of San
> Diego.
> >
>
> Yet they also have to serve the "public interest" of Mexico,
> as well. Recently, when I visited Comic Con in San Diego, I
> noticed that XETV carried PSAs from the Mexican government,
> translated into English, during their morning newscasts.
> Considering the obvious about Mexico, the ads are just like
> peeing into the wind, yet XETV (and probably XHUPN as well)
> are obligated tro carry them, as part of the requirements
> for the Mexican license.
>
And I suspect that XETV will provide their "proof" of serving the "public interest" of San Diego through their San Diego-based news programming...
- Status