• 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

Last aerial TV channel shared by two or more stations in the US

A

azumanga

What was the last station in the US where two or more separate TV stations share the same channel, during the pre-digital era? I think the last was WPWR / WBBS in Chicago, which shared channel 60 from 1982 until 1987, when WPWR moved to its own channel on 50, with WBBS (later WEHS, now WXFT) keeping 60.

Has there been any other such instances since then?
 
Not on television and not in the USA, but just last year in Mexico City, five radio stations began broadcasting on 94.1 FM. All five stations are owned by Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana: XHUAMA, XHUAMC, XHUAMI, XHUAMR, and XHUAMX. The one caveat with this scenario is that the stations may or may not have overlapping coverage areas, so I don't know if they are sharing airtime or are just repeaters of one another. Still, I think it would be pretty cool if they were in fact sharing airtime.

As far as I know, WPWR/WBBS was the last television arrangement of its type in the United States.
 
The reason WPWR-TV/WBBS had a shared agreement was because Newsweb Corporation wanted to get on the air right away. They already held the license for an unbuilt channel 56 (then a commercial license), but couldn't locate in Chicago at the time on 56. The shared agreement ended in 1986 when Newsweb bought the WBBS license, due to WSNS going to full time Spanish a year earlier, & WBBS's ratings dropped. Newsweb could have stayed on 60 after buying out WBBS's license, but for some reason, they wanted to change channels. The company that now runs WYIN was about to acquire the dormant channel 50 license (then a non-commercial license with the call letters WCAE) when Newsweb wanted to buy it, & have the licenses swapped, making 50 commercial to locate in Chicago, & 56 to become non-commercial, & is now WYIN. 56 couldn't locate in Chicago due to 60 broadcasting in Chicago, but also because 55 is licensed to Kenosha Wisconsin, & that station signed on in 1988 from a tower located in Pleasant Prairie Wisconsin, making 56 short-spaced. Had that not been a problem back then, WPWR-TV would have signed on channel 56 instead of 60. The short-spacing issue back then was resolved over 10 years later when 55 relocated their transmitter to Franksville, WI in Racine County, & 56 would have had to co-locate on the Sears Tower to protect channel 60. Money was the reason WYIN didn't relocate their analog transmission & build out the digital transmission there too, or WYIN would have relocated there, over the objections of WTTW & WYCC, who did not want WYIN transmitting in Chicago, & tried ot get the FCC to deny WYIN's request, but their requests were denied.
 
I'm pretty sure you're right about WPWR/WBBS being the last, however...

the FCC recently evaluated a number of applications for new non-commercial stations on channel 43 in Sacramento. They found two applicants to be equally qualified -- and accepted their applications for filing.

Assuming there are no deficiencies in the applications, and neither applicant withdraws... *Both* will receive licenses, and will be expected to share time.
 
w9wi said:
I'm pretty sure you're right about WPWR/WBBS being the last, however...

the FCC recently evaluated a number of applications for new non-commercial stations on channel 43 in Sacramento. They found two applicants to be equally qualified -- and accepted their applications for filing.

Assuming there are no deficiencies in the applications, and neither applicant withdraws... *Both* will receive licenses, and will be expected to share time.
Click to expand...

Though in the digital age, one has to wonder how they'll go about that -- either the old-fashioned way by each having parts of a broadcasting day, or both having its own subchannel.
 
Well, the "both having its own subchannel" idea makes a lot of sense, and the FCC has (vaguely) suggested it.

On the other hand, when ION proposed authorizing a second station to share time with each of their outlets, they got shot down.

Then again, that could be because ION didn't propose to authorize the second license through normal procedure. Maybe if they'd offered to let the FCC auction off the rights to the second subchannel it might have flown. (of course, that would have blown their business plan)

Since these two went through the normal FCC procedure, it could well be the Commission *will* let them operate as continuous subchannels.

The controversy that'll come up there will have to do with must-carry. If each gets part of the broadcast day, then cable only has to provide one channel. If each gets a subchannel, cable will need to provide two channels... they're not going to like that...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom