New NYC and Philadelphia full-power stations denied, more or less

[w9wi]

The FCC has denied PMCM's requests to move KVNV-3 Ely, Nevada to Middletown Township, New Jersey and KJWY-2 from Jackson, Wyoming to Wilmington, Delaware. (the stations would have transmitted from NYC and Philadelphia, respectively)

They ruled that the definition of "reallocation" is the move of a channel from one place to another place **when the channel cannot be used in both places simultaneously**. Provisions of the "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982" **required** the FCC to approve such a reallocation if the station requested and it would place a commercial VHF channel in a state that didn't already have one. (New Jersey and Delaware were the only two such states)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2603A1.txt

The result of (and the reason for) the 1982 Act was to allow WOR-9 New York City to move to Secaucus, New Jersey and thus escape the revocation of its license due to misdeeds at the station's corporate owner.

Obviously, the use of channel 2 in Jackson, Wyoming does NOT preclude the use of the same channel in Wilmington, Delaware!

_________________________________________________

HOWEVER...

The 1982 Act also mandates that "It shall be the policy of the Federal Communications Commission to allocate
channels for very high frequency commercial television broadcasting in a
manner which ensures that not less than one such channel shall be allocated to
each State, if technically feasible."

In 1982, it was *not* "technically feasible" to allocate new VHF channels to New Jersey or Delaware, without moving an existing station.

In 2009, due to the widespread abandonment of low-band VHF with DTV, it *is* technically feasible.

(and yes, New Jersey is again without a commercial VHF station. WOR -- now WWOR -- elected to leave its permanent DTV facility on its interim channel 38. No Philadelphia station ever took advantage of the 1982 Act to move to Delaware, so Delaware hasn't had a commercial VHF station since WDEL-TV went dark in the 1950s.)

The FCC feels they're required to allocate at least one VHF commercial station to each state. To that end, they have on their own motion proposed to allot:

Channel 4 to Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Channel 5 to Seaford, Delaware.

Note that the PMCM proposals would have the channel 3 transmitter in NYC and the channel 2 transmitter in Philadelphia. (leaving no doubt as to which cities they *really* proposed to serve!) The FCC-proposed communities are far enough from NYC and Philadelphia that the NYC/Philly tower farms could not be used -- a transmitter in NYC could not provide a city-grade to Atlantic City, and a transmitter in Philadelphia could not provide a city-grade to Seaford.

_________________________________________________

It should also be noted that the FCC channel 4/5 proposal is just that, a proposal. Counterproposals are now in order. I would indeed suggest counterproposals would stand a fair chance of succeeding. Atlantic City already has two TV stations, and Seaford has one. It would seem "fair distribution of service" would be better served by allocating channels elsewhere in these two states.

At the same time, profitability of the new stations would be better served by selecting communities such that the transmitters could be located on the Empire State Building and in the Roxborough tower farm in Philadelphia. For example, Bloomfield, New Jersey and Newark, Delaware.

The use of channels 4 and 5 is not etched in stone either. Channel 6 is offlimits throughout most of these two states due to its use by WPVI Philadelphia, and channel 5 can only be used either within 24km of the WPVI tower, or at least 110km from it. Channels 2-4 should be usable everywhere in these states.

 

[arnoldevns]

Seems to me PMCM has grounds for a lawsuit against the FCC. The 1982 act inquestion was an act of congress, not a rule from the FCC. The act makes no mention of technical feasability or whether the signals could not be usedat the same time in the two places. PMCM clearly followed the wording of the law. The FCC has decided to ignore that law. They can't do that.

 

[pabsungenis]

Channel 4 in Atlantic City should be allocated as a non-commercial channel to replace the deleted non-commercial allocation of 56. Seaford should be commercial, since the only other TV station in the market is non-commercial.

Make sense?

 

[tripinva]

No, because that wouldn't do anything to fix the problem PMCM pointed out.

- Trip

 

[pabsungenis]

We don't need any more commercial allocations in New Jersey; we're wasting two fifths of the ones we do have.

 

[dave73]

I don't wanna see anymore allocations for Chicago either. There's already 15 full power stations for Chicago (technically 16, but I don't consider WWTO DT-10.1 PSIP 35.1 a Chicago station, since it barely covers the western suburbs of Chicago, and is in LaSalle County, IL). WCPX carries ION TV, and it's mostly infomercials. Ion Life has better programming, and few infomercials on that channel. WJYS PSIP 62.1 hasn't changed since they went digital. While I overall don't care for the programming that they do carry (some brokered religious sermons), they've increased the number of infomercials since going digital. They carry sermons, but carry occasional infomercials for Girls Gone Wild. Something I wouldn't see appropriate if WJYS is aiming to serve the religious people. Not only that, they carry any infomercial by scam artist, Kevin Trudeau. While I don't care for WEDE-CA, at least they could program WJYS better if they owned it, than WJYS has ever done.

I say that if there is room to allocate more channels to some smaller markets, then that should be where new channels be allocated, and not to any major cities. Chicago is already saturated with full power allocations. Some smaller markets don't have CW or My Network affiliates, either because one station either doesn't have the bandwidth to carry a subchannel, or shows no interest in carrying a subchannel. There might be markets where there still is no PBS station. That's something Chicago can't afford to support, is another PBS station, as there are 3 in the market (2 in Chicago, & one in Merrillville Indiana, licensed to Gary, Indiana). I don't even think they could handle a 4th non-commercial license in general.

 

[w9wi]

Channel 4 in Atlantic City should be allocated as a non-commercial channel to replace the deleted non-commercial allocation of 56. Seaford should be commercial, since the only other TV station in the market is non-commercial.

The 1982 Act requires there be a VHF *commercial* channel in each state if it is technically feasible to do so. It is now technically feasible to do so, so unless Congress repeals the law, the FCC *must* allocate a channel as commercial.

Now, there's nothing to stop the FCC from allocating more than one VHF channel. They could possibly allocate channel 4 for non-commercial operation at Atlantic City *and* channel 2 for commercial operation. (or some other combination)

_________________________________________________

It would appear to be feasible to allocate channels 3 and 6 to Chicago. Probably 2 as well -- there is a permit for a digital LPTV on 2 but it's not a Class A so it couldn't prevent the use of the channel for a full-power station. 2 and 3 could co-exist if they're within 20km. (almost certain as the only truly viable transmitter sites are only a few km apart) I suppose WHBF and WWAZ would preclude allocation of channels 4 and 5.

There are few markets without a PBS station, but probably the largest such market is adjacent to Chicago. (Rockford)

 

[Markxxx]

You have to remember that no one is going to build a TV station without attempting to maximize profit. No one is gonna go for an allocation for a suburb or area that is served by few people. It cost the same to put the station on the air so why not locate it in an area with the most potential viewers.

The FCC screwed up royally by allowing TV stations to choose which channel they wanted at digital transition. This is basically what happened in the AM band, and why the FCC specifically allocated TV channels in the early 50s so that it wouldn't turn into another AM Band problem, which it has. Basically TV stations now using reduced power and directional antennas to cope.

 

[w9wi]

You have to remember that no one is going to build a TV station without attempting to maximize profit. No one is gonna go for an allocation for a suburb or area that is served by few people. It cost the same to put the station on the air so why not locate it in an area with the most potential viewers.

In most cases, suburbs are close enough to existing tower farms and small enough geographically that a station co-located with the central-city stations could comply with FCC regulations regarding service to the suburb. The suburban city-of-license is invisible to just about everyone -- as far as they can tell, the station is licensed to the central city. The Univision and My Network TV stations in Chicago; all three major Hispanic stations in New York; the Telemundo station in Los Angeles; and the Fox, NBC, and Telemundo stations in San Francisco are all licensed to suburbs. As are the primary PBS stations in New York and Philadelphia. And except for the SFO Telemundo station, all the transmitters are co-located with other major stations in those markets.

 

[ding12]

Seems to me PMCM has grounds for a lawsuit against the FCC. The 1982 act inquestion was an act of congress, not a rule from the FCC. The act makes no mention of technical feasability or whether the signals could not be usedat the same time in the two places. PMCM clearly followed the wording of the law. The FCC has decided to ignore that law. They can't do that.

Congress passes the laws (the __ Act), but it's the FCC that interprets it with rulings, and enforces it.

 

[ding12]

Channel 4 in Atlantic City should be allocated as a non-commercial channel to replace the deleted non-commercial allocation of 56. Seaford should be commercial, since the only other TV station in the market is non-commercial.

Make sense?

Seaford is a waste of an allocation. I'd think Dover would have been better to cover the state, while still being on the Philadelphia DMA side, and not the Salisbury DMA side. It's a lot easier and more sense getting Philadelphia DMA carriage (on Directv, Dish, Verizon, and half of Comcast footprint) and a market modification petition for Sussex County (thus all of DE), than getting Salisbury DMA coverage and maybe a market modification for Kent County DE, without even claiming Northern DE.

We don't need any more commercial allocations in New Jersey; we're wasting two fifths of the ones we do have.

Agreed. NJ is over-served for the most part, esp. So. NJ.

 

[ding12]

Agreed. NJ is over-served for the most part, esp. So. NJ.

I take this one back. If I had the resources, I'd build a station in Central NJ, lets use a COL of Brick, NJ. Within the NY DMA, but I'd try for state-wide NJ carriage, with a OTA signal seeping into Camden and Burlington Counties in So. NJ, and claim none of the New York/Philadelphia stations or the cable owned networks cover all of NJ well. It'd be still a battle getting programming and making money however, but that area doesn't have any other true local stations to compete against and is densely populated.

 

[hubcity]

Agreed. NJ is over-served for the most part, esp. So. NJ.

I take this one back. If I had the resources, I'd build a station in Central NJ, lets use a COL of Brick, NJ. Within the NY DMA, but I'd try for state-wide NJ carriage, with a OTA signal seeping into Camden and Burlington Counties in So. NJ, and claim none of the New York/Philadelphia stations or the cable owned networks cover all of NJ well. It'd be still a battle getting programming and making money however, but that area doesn't have any other true local stations to compete against and is densely populated.

For central positioning, I'd suggest northern Jackson Township...but I wonder what the engineering issues would be for a transmitter that sits atop a very tall roller coaster track?

 

[dave73]

It would appear to be feasible to allocate channels 3 and 6 to Chicago. Probably 2 as well -- there is a permit for a digital LPTV on 2 but it's not a Class A so it couldn't prevent the use of the channel for a full-power station. 2 and 3 could co-exist if they're within 20km. (almost certain as the only truly viable transmitter sites are only a few km apart) I suppose WHBF and WWAZ would preclude allocation of channels 4 and 5.

There are few markets without a PBS station, but probably the largest such market is adjacent to Chicago. (Rockford)

I believe channel 3 could still be allocated to Chicago, as that was the channel WBBM-TV was broadcasting their digital signal on. I was one of the few who did get them on channel 3. The biggest complaint was that people weren't getting it at all. The reason I got them is because I have an outdoor antenna, and it's optimized for Low VHF. Most of the antennas I've seen in my area for outdoor that are new, have been UHF only antennas. Chicago has always been a VHF/UHF market, and it has been that way for digital too (both pre & post-transition). Many of the older antennas were missing elements. As with most markets, digital doesn't penetrate buildings as well. I can't get VHF or UHF in my home. That's why I have to have the outdoor antenna. At least I live somewhere that I can have one. Apartment & condo dwellers have limited options for improving OTA reception. There's a channel 4 allocated for Class A digital. It mainly covers the city & a few nearby suburbs. I don't know how many people get WOCK-CD. I know I don't get it, as the signal is that directional.

Lastly, there's already a channel 6 allocated to Chicago, but it's currently a low power station, and the owners currently use it as a radio station instead of a TV station. If the owners of WLFM-LP didn't have to transmit video, they wouldn't do so. So as long as the FCC allows stations such as WLFM-LP use channel 6 as a radio station, channel 6 might not be used as an actual TV station in many markets. Even if the current channel 6 were to operate as a TV station (full power), they have to make sure they don't interfere with any 88.1's within the Chicago market. There's a grandfathered Class D 88.1 on the SE side of Chicago WDDS (not guaranteed to be free from interference), & Class A's: WBMF Crete, WNTH Winnetka, WLTL LaGrange, WLRA Lockport, WETN Wheaton, WCRX Chicago, & WAES Lincolnshire. Prior to WITI Milwaukee abandoning channel 6, the only way WMWK Milwaukee could broadcast on 88.1 without interfering with the audio of WITI, was to have their antenna on the same tower with WITI.

 

[w9wi]

Lastly, there's already a channel 6 allocated to Chicago, but it's currently a low power station, and the owners currently use it as a radio station instead of a TV station. If the owners of WLFM-LP didn't have to transmit video, they wouldn't do so. So as long as the FCC allows stations such as WLFM-LP use channel 6 as a radio station, channel 6 might not be used as an actual TV station in many markets. Even if the current channel 6 were to operate as a TV station (full power), they have to make sure they don't interfere with any 88.1's within the Chicago market. There's a grandfathered Class D 88.1 on the SE side of Chicago WDDS (not guaranteed to be free from interference), & Class A's: WBMF Crete, WNTH Winnetka, WLTL LaGrange, WLRA Lockport, WETN Wheaton, WCRX Chicago, & WAES Lincolnshire. Prior to WITI Milwaukee abandoning channel 6, the only way WMWK Milwaukee could broadcast on 88.1 without interfering with the audio of WITI, was to have their antenna on the same tower with WITI.

WLFM is a LPTV station, not a Class A, so it is not protected from new full-power stations. If a new full-power channel 6 were authorized in Chicago, WLFM would have to find a new channel or cease broadcasting. (and of course, either way their operation as a radio station would be over)

I'm not finding anything in the rules requiring channel 6 DTV operations to protect non-commercial FM. There are rules (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/47cfr73.525.htm) that go the other way around, protecting channel 6 from FM, but I don't see any the other way around. That said, I do have a vague recollection of hearing of such a restriction & sure wish I could find it. Could be it was just that the FCC tried to avoid assigning channel 6 where possible.