How likely will KFWY-LD (Ch. 26) and K18NV-D sign on in Cheyenne?

[ZantennaG1]

This news, of course, comes after the frustrating late 2010's period where cell-phone groups would pretend to set up dozens of TV stations in a market, and then swap it out for nothing. They wouldn't even turn on the cell service half the time, generating a good chunk of distrust for me. Hopefully this time, these applications are for real. I have to take this with a seed of doubt, but the organizations seem to be on the up and up. So what's your thoughts? Will KFWY and K18NV get on the air? Or is this another scam?

Some notes here: Both of these stations are off the air right now. I thought maybe it was my antenna setup, so I moved some things around, and still nothing. I can receive KCNC Denver plus my locals, but not these new applications, so they are assumed to be off the air for now. Also, what would their formats even be?

 

[tripinva]

K18NV-D is on the air. I have yet to do updates with it, but someone in the area sent me TSReader data for it a few days ago.

- Trip

 

[ZantennaG1]

K18NV-D is on the air. I have yet to do updates with it, but someone in the area sent me TSReader data for it a few days ago.

- Trip

Thank you for the update. I am now receiving them with a decent signal! Does this station have any plans to go for ATSC 3.0, as far as you can tell? Right now, my TV can't decode the video, but you can hear the programming audio-wise just fine.

 

[tripinva]

The station is running MPEG-4 video, which is why your set can't decode the video. I doubt that is any indication of intent to go to 3.0.

- Trip

 

[ZantennaG1]

The station is running MPEG-4 video, which is why your set can't decode the video. I doubt that is any indication of intent to go to 3.0.

- Trip

Thank you for your Insight on the mpeg-4 feed, I wonder why they would choose that if it struggles to decode?

 

[ZantennaG1]

KFWY-LD has now applied to move to the Dell Range Tower with over 6,000 watts directional towards Cheyenne. This should help with interference towards KLWY, but KFWY would be better off on a different channel. At least now, there will be a lot better coverage over Cheyenne, and the new tower site is home to the recently signed on K18NV-D.

 

[Sammi Brie]

Thank you for your Insight on the mpeg-4 feed, I wonder why they would choose that if it struggles to decode?

Quick background on MPEG-4/H.264 in ATSC 1.0. It was added to spec as A/72 in 2008. Rather late in the game, as you can tell. It can bring quite an improvement over the MPEG-2 codec in efficiency (which means more, say, HD channels on a mux). But alas, not every set can handle it. The audio isn't affected by the choice of video codec.

There have been some Mexican examples of MPEG-4 use, but most of them were abandoned because of support reasons. There was also a conditional-access LPTV system in Minnesota using MPEG-4, but as you needed their equipment to view the channels, that wasn't the issue it would be otherwise.

ATSC 3.0 uses HEVC/H.265, which is more efficient still than MPEG-4.

 

[ZantennaG1]

Channel 18 (K18NV-D) in Cheyenne has changed callsigns to KXCY-LD. Still odd they went with MPEG-4

 

[Kelly A]

Thank you for the update. I am now receiving them with a decent signal! Does this station have any plans to go for ATSC 3.0, as far as you can tell? Right now, my TV can't decode the video, but you can hear the programming audio-wise just fine.

ATSC 3.0 in Cheyenne?? Now that's funny!

 

[ZantennaG1]

ATSC 3.0 in Cheyenne?? Now that's funny!

You'd be suprised how many things come our way faster by lieu of Denver's influence! But yeah, I honestly don't see us switching over for a few years

 

[Kelly A]

You'd be suprised how many things come our way faster by lieu of Denver's influence! But yeah, I honestly don't see us switching over for a few years

The only reason why the FCC recently started showing interest in ATSC 3.0, is exactly why I thought they would: Consolidate all the ATSC 1.0 signals onto a single ATSC 3.0 carrier in each market, then auction off all that remaining spectrum to PCS/Cell carriers. That scenario is the only way ATSC 3.0 will ever get traction.

 

[ZantennaG1]

The only reason why the FCC recently started showing interest in ATSC 3.0, is exactly why I thought they would: Consolidate all the ATSC 1.0 signals onto a single ATSC 3.0 carrier in each market, then auction off all that remaining spectrum to PCS/Cell carriers.

💲💲💲 for the FCC, of course!

That scenario is the only way ATSC 3.0 will ever get traction.

I think there's a small chance that 3.0 will catch on in a normal way, but I do not see people turning away from streaming for this. In fact, if 3.0 was to be entirely successful, we needed it to be around in 2012-ish, maybe earlier.

 

[Kelly A]

💲💲💲 for the FCC, of course!

Actually, for Congress.

I think there's a small chance that 3.0 will catch on in a normal way, but I do not see people turning away from streaming for this. In fact, if 3.0 was to be entirely successful, we needed it to be around in 2012-ish, maybe earlier.

ATSC 3.0 offers very little incentive for average consumers to intentionally migrate. Currently all the existing local TV signals carried on 3.0 'Lighthouse Stations' are only standard HD, so there is zero benefit for someone to purchase an ATSC 3.0-capable TV over a traditional ATSC 1.0 version.