K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
If the Aussies can do it, why couldn't we, right?
-
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
Kimmel returns Tuesday
- Thread starter michael hagerty
- Start date
- Status
If the Aussies can do it, why couldn't we, right?
Why merge and drop a third of their abc affiliates. They will lose their bargaining power.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Yes, they will, and I already said that.
But keep in mind that the merger preceded their bonehead move with Kimmel.
They didn’t expect the backlash against them. Or they didn’t read the room.
They mis-read the room.
They wanted to curry favor with the administration and get their deals done. Doesn't hurt that both organizations lean right to begin with.
Because Disney ABC had given Trump $16 million over Stephanopoulos, Nexstar and Sinclair figured they'd take the easy way and keep Kimmel off the air.
What they didn't count on was, as you say the backlash, but more to the point, the scope of the backlash. Not just consumers, but stockholders. Hundreds of artists, some currently working for Disney who signed a statement saying they'd never do so again.
They also really misunderstood how good the relationship between Disney and Kimmel is. This wasn't an "easy excuse" to dump Kimmel as far as Disney was concerned, which meant they were willing to listen to Jimmy and his team.
The end result: It goes completely the other way. Nexstar and Sinclair give Disney the opportunity to say "not this time" to the bully asking for the lunch money and they end up on the wrong end of consumers and stockholders.
Poetic.
In case there's any doubt, a new poll says that Americans support Jimmy Kimmel by 2 to 1:
www.yahoo.com
Poll: Americans approve of Jimmy Kimmel's return to TV by a more than 2-to-1 margin
Respondents are divided over the remarks that got Kimmel suspended. But they object to the suspension itself — and the Trump administration’s involvement.
@IM42A said:
For example, a station carrying Canal Once (an educational broadcast network, basically the Mexican equivalent of PBS) would map to virtual channel 11, since once (pronounced OHN-seh, for those not familiar) is Spanish for the number eleven.
Exceptions to this rule occur in cities along the U.S.-Mexico border, where signal overlap occurs with American stations (hence my saying “not completely” in the first paragraph). In Tijuana, for instance, XETV-TDT, a transmitter for Canal 5 and Nueve can’t use virtual channels 5 and 9 because of signal overlap with Los Angeles’ KTLA and KCAL-TV, respectively, over northern San Diego county. Therefore XETV-TDT uses virtual channels 6 for the former network and 16 for the latter.
This is mostly (but not completely) the case in Mexico, where any station carrying a given national network maps to the virtual channel corresponding to that network’s Mexico City flagship.
For example, a station carrying Canal Once (an educational broadcast network, basically the Mexican equivalent of PBS) would map to virtual channel 11, since once (pronounced OHN-seh, for those not familiar) is Spanish for the number eleven.
Exceptions to this rule occur in cities along the U.S.-Mexico border, where signal overlap occurs with American stations (hence my saying “not completely” in the first paragraph). In Tijuana, for instance, XETV-TDT, a transmitter for Canal 5 and Nueve can’t use virtual channels 5 and 9 because of signal overlap with Los Angeles’ KTLA and KCAL-TV, respectively, over northern San Diego county. Therefore XETV-TDT uses virtual channels 6 for the former network and 16 for the latter.
Last edited:
Didn't ABC end up getting channel 7 in most major U.S. markets? I believe they thought the FCC was going to axe VHF-low, so they claimed the prime VHF-high channel wherever they could.
In Kansas City it was and is channel 9
Yeah. All five markets (the max then was 7 AM, 7 FM, 5 TV). New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Detroit.
Groups urge FCC Chairman Carr to resign over Jimmy Kimmel spat
The chairman's veiled threat against ABC over a "Jimmy Kimmel Live" monologue was overly political, the groups argue.
thedesk.net
Update there are calls for Chairman Carr to resign over the handling of Jimmy Kimmel.
"Calls" don't mean anything. Honestly, the culture we're in, there will be groups "calling" for people to resign (or be impeached or whatever) on a near constant basis. This 'coalition' has about as much chance of seeing this happen as I do of winning the PowerBall. Heck, my odds may be better. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, writing letter is about as irrelevant as irrelevant can be.
But originally on channel 5! (until 1955)
I like that idea. It would have especially been nice if the Mexican flagship numbering scheme Joey1986 described were incorporated in it. 7 in New York, 7 everywhere.
When digital cable and DBS materialized in the 1990s, I thought the cable and satellite industries should have standardized on a single nation-wide channel lineup using the 100-999 range. Local VHF and UHF stations would get their own terrestrial channel numbers in the 2-69 range, eliminating that "KBHK channel 44, cable 12" nonsense. Empty local terrestrial channels would be empty on your local cable/satellite system as well, while cable networks your system didn't carry would leave corresponding holes in its 100-999 range. Done this way, anyone visiting your home, or calling you from elsewhere in the country, would just be able to say "turn on 390" without delays from searching for a network's (unmemorized) channel number. 70-99 could have been for public access and system-specific barker channels, since they never or no longer existed terrestrially. Each system's EPG could have been standardized as channel 0 -- tuning it would bring up the physical Prevue Guide on systems without in-receiver EPG firmware, or trigger that firmware if present.
There's an organization nobody has ever heard of called NANPA that allocates and standardizes all of our telephone area codes. A similar neutral party could have existed for managing and making adjustments as necessary to a national cable/satellite channel lineup.
Last edited:
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Yes, and no.
Remember, those were originally applied for and licensed in the analog era. Back then, VHF-Low was better because of the transmission mode, and there were few applicants in the VHF-High band. ABC applied for channel 7 in all five cities where they owned radio stations in 1947 for the sake of consistency.
You're thinking in terms of the switch to digital, which I guarantee wasn't even being considered back then.
(Capital Cities sold WXYZ-AM/TV and WRIT-FM in Detroit in 1986 when they acquired ABC, because at the time FCC ownership rules would not have allowed them to keep the two stations they already owned in the market ... WJR and WHYT-FM.)
True and the only time we expect somebody like Chairman Carr to leave the FCC or any cabinet position is around Inauguration day 2029.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Unless the Democrats get control of Congress in the mid-terms and remove him by impeachment.
That was probably me. The old timer I mentioned was from a FidoNet engineering conference I read in the ancient BBS days. So in retrospect, he may have very well been an actual engineer in 1948. Incidentally: channel 1 vanished from TV, and ABC (as a radio network) entered the TV world, in that same year.
Edit to @K.M. Richards - Just saw your post above (#455). Quite possible consistency was also their goal. I just remember from the FidoNet poster's story that ABC felt 7 would make them the "first channel on the dial" because of their having the mistaken impression channels 2-6 were going to be eliminated next (after 1's removal). He was specifically poking fun at ABC for having miscalculated on that.
Last edited:
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Adding some more off-topic trivia ... channel 9 was a share-time for the first nine months of its existence, with handoffs between the two stations (KMBC-TV and WHB-TV) every 90 minutes!
History of UHF Television (first entry in the article)
Staying on-topic with the off-topic…the stations shared a transmitter atop the Power and Light Building and were joining together to build a new tower in northeast Kansas City (northeast part of the city south of the Missouri River) before Arthur Church sold KMBC radio and TV in 1954 to the WHB interests (who, in turn, sold WHB radio to Storz). I’m a little sad that the WHB-TV call letters didn’t survive but KMBC-TV’s not bad from a historical perspective.
- Status