Sinclair (KABB Fox San Antonio) announces its buying WOAI and selling KMYS

[JHBrandt]

If they won't let me install a outdoor satellite dish, I doubt they will let me do that with an outdoor antenna. And there is two floors above me.

As long as it's on property you rent (i.e., everything remains below the second floor), your landlord can't legally stop you from installing either one. Effective January 22, 1999, the FCC amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio. That appears to be your situation.

Go here for more info, including what to do if your landlord won't cooperate.

 

[willdav713]

If they won't let me install a outdoor satellite dish, I doubt they will let me do that with an outdoor antenna. And there is two floors above me.

As long as it's on property you rent (i.e., everything remains below the second floor), your landlord can't legally stop you from installing either one. Effective January 22, 1999, the FCC amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio. That appears to be your situation.

Go here for more info, including what to do if your landlord won't cooperate.

I already did that step before and it is the common area. As far as my patio? It is in the back by the mini-forest of trees leading into a creek. I doubt you see satellite dishes and antenna's in the hall ways.

 

[JHBrandt]

Yes, if the back yard is common to multiple apartments (i.e., you don't have your own fenced-off area), then you can't put an antenna there. You have to stick to someplace other tenants can't go, like your patio, and I don't know how much room that'd give you (though even a small indoor antenna would perform better if there's less concrete & steel between it and the TV towers). But I'm confused. Are you saying your patio isn't contiguous with your apartment, so you'd have to run cable through a common hallway?

If that's the issue, you might consider something like this. That would eliminate the cable. But you'd need electricity on your patio, a converter box, & a weatherproof housing for the converter box and sender unit. And this assumes your patio is on the "TV tower" side of your apartment building, otherwise there's not much point; even then it might be more trouble than it's worth.

This is the spot where I once again gripe about the lack of good indoor antennas on the market. Seems like someone could gang 4 or more UHF bow-ties into a largish, but reasonably flat, UHF antenna with a stand for indoor use. They could even include a loop sized for VHF-Hi; the combo might make an odd-looking piece of furniture but with a plastic housing to hide the "guts" I don't think it'd be particularly ugly; and it'd have at least some gain to help overcome common RF nightmares like this.

 

[willdav713]

Yes, if the back yard is common to multiple apartments (i.e., you don't have your own fenced-off area), then you can't put an antenna there. You have to stick to someplace other tenants can't go, like your patio, and I don't know how much room that'd give you (though even a small indoor antenna would perform better if there's less concrete & steel between it and the TV towers). But I'm confused. Are you saying your patio isn't contiguous with your apartment, so you'd have to run cable through a common hallway?

If that's the issue, you might consider something like this. That would eliminate the cable. But you'd need electricity on your patio, a converter box, & a weatherproof housing for the converter box and sender unit. And this assumes your patio is on the "TV tower" side of your apartment building, otherwise there's not much point; even then it might be more trouble than it's worth.

This is the spot where I once again gripe about the lack of good indoor antennas on the market. Seems like someone could gang 4 or more UHF bow-ties into a largish, but reasonably flat, UHF antenna with a stand for indoor use. They could even include a loop sized for VHF-Hi; the combo might make an odd-looking piece of furniture but with a plastic housing to hide the "guts" I don't think it'd be particularly ugly; and it'd have at least some gain to help overcome common RF nightmares like this.

My patio is in the back facing the mini forest of trees (lots of them!!!) by the creek. By my door there is a hallway, not fenced. It is the apartments common area. Management showed me the property lines. Myself and Direct TV Technician confirmed this. I asked about a Outdoor Antenna, and they said no. Even though there is brick separating the parking lot for our units. The TV tower side would be to the west (West Lake is further south than Great Hills) which is on the mini forest patio side. Too much trees, to much metal, and a carport on the front side of building. Lets see from 360/183 where I am makes West Lake Hills south (Dish Network won't work here, at all) Direct TV would but placed on the Apartments (not mine) common area property (which is a no no)

 

[JHBrandt]

My patio is in the back facing the mini forest of trees (lots of them!!!) by the creek. By my door there is a hallway, not fenced. It is the apartments common area. Management showed me the property lines. Myself and Direct TV Technician confirmed this. I asked about a Outdoor Antenna, and they said no. Even though there is brick separating the parking lot for our units. The TV tower side would be to the west (West Lake is further south than Great Hills) which is on the mini forest patio side. Too much trees, to much metal, and a carport on the front side of building. Lets see from 360/183 where I am makes West Lake Hills south (Dish Network won't work here, at all) Direct TV would but placed on the Apartments (not mine) common area property (which is a no no)

I believe you; I'm just having trouble picturing how they can have something they call "your" patio. Seems like if it's a common patio it's not really "yours;" it's "ours."

Anyhow, I get the idea. No place outdoors for an antenna, period. How about the west side of your apartment? Any doors or windows? From an RF standpoint I'd rather deal with glass & trees than concrete & steel any day.

 

[Rube Dali the DodoHorse]

It would be too disruptive without any real payoff. Both stations are now UHF. No real reason to switch affiliations.

Fred,

If the two stations in question were of relative vintage, your idea of the status quo would work. But even in this era of digital TV, leagcy analog channel numbers still matter. I think it's likely that an NBC-for-Fox swap for WOAI, and vis-a-vis for KABB will be considered and possibly executed by Sinclair, unless NBCUniversal objects to the proposal.

That said, I'm not an expert in Texas TV like y'all are, so this post could come off as egotistical.

 

[newsmark]

t an NBC-for-Fox swap for WOAI, and vis-a-vis for KABB will be considered and possibly executed by Sinclair, unless NBCUniversal objects to the proposal.

Ultimately NBC might not have any say in the matter, either, if WOAI's contract ends. CBS didn't want to lose KDFW/4 in Dallas or KTBC/7 in Austin. CBS is still recovering from losing WJBK/2 in Detroit. And NBC didn't want to lose KDAF/4 in Kansas City.

NBC could still try to find some creative solution like they did in San Francisco. When KRON/4's owners wouldn't sell, NBC bought KNTV/11 San Jose, upgraded the signal and moved it into San Francisco. NBC could try to do something similar with KCWX/2. (But, boy would that be expensive for NBC and painful to watch!)

 

[intx]

Anything's possible, but you guys have given no plausible reason for them to flip NBC to KABB and WOAI to Fox. That'd be pretty much pointless and cause a lot of viewer confusion. What would be gained?

 

[fredcantu]

The only thing the swap idea has going for it is the Fox 4 alliteration. The digital signals are virtually identical and both are in the low channel range on the local cable. I just don't see it necessary. The cost of switching signs and logos and web sites and vehicle wraps would be astronomical... and to gain what?

 

[formeraa]

The only thing the swap idea has going for it is the Fox 4 alliteration. The digital signals are virtually identical and both are in the low channel range on the local cable. I just don't see it necessary. The cost of switching signs and logos and web sites and vehicle wraps would be astronomical... and to gain what?

Oooh, Fox 4 WOAI does have a certain alliteration to it!

 

[JHBrandt]

NBC didn't want to lose KDAF/4 in Kansas City.

Interestingly, KDAF is now channel 33 in D/FW. Looks like 33 got those calls in 1986.

 

[newsmark]

NBC didn't want to lose KDAF/4 in Kansas City.

Interestingly, KDAF is now channel 33 in D/FW. Looks like 33 got those calls in 1986.

My mistake. I intended to type WDAF in Kansas City, which is still the call letters. The KC affiliation switch took effect in 1994.

 

[newsmark]

Anything's possible, but you guys have given no plausible reason for them to flip NBC to KABB and WOAI to Fox. That'd be pretty much pointless and cause a lot of viewer confusion. What would be gained?

Here's a plausible reason: Fox only programs a couple of hours a day, compared to NBC's 12 1/2 hours. Putting Fox on the stronger station gives the owners a chance to program much more of the day with local news and syndicated programming, both of which let them sell more of the commercial time rather than giving it up to NBC. WOAI would no doubt draw higher ratings and commercial rates than KABB.

On the other hand, NBC would provide a big boost to KABB's image and ratings. It could be win/win for the owners, if not for NBC.

 

[JHBrandt]

The only thing the swap idea has going for it is the Fox 4 alliteration.

Hmm.... Fox 4, Fox 5, CBS 6, CBS 7, ABC 8, & NBC 9 are all alliterative. Do the networks generally prefer those virtual channel numbers? In D/FW we have Fox 4 and ABC 8; Tulsa has CBS 6 and ABC 8; but Houston and OKC (for example) are all mixed up.

Of course there's also Fox 14, Fox 15, CBS 16, etc.; not to mention Fox 40-59 & CBS 60-69, but I assume most virtual channel numbers for the major networks are in the 2-13 range (a legacy of the analog era),

 

[intx]

KABB beats WOAI in the ratings for primetime and for local news. WOAI is one of the weakest big-market NBC stations in the country. Again, Sinclair has NOTHING to gain by flipping affiliations.

 

[Kent]

Hmm.... Fox 4, Fox 5, CBS 6, CBS 7, ABC 8, & NBC 9 are all alliterative. Do the networks generally prefer those virtual channel numbers? In D/FW we have Fox 4 and ABC 8; Tulsa has CBS 6 and ABC 8; but Houston and OKC (for example) are all mixed up.

Of course there's also Fox 14, Fox 15, CBS 16, etc.; not to mention Fox 40-59 & CBS 60-69, but I assume most virtual channel numbers for the major networks are in the 2-13 range (a legacy of the analog era),

Almost all stations that mention their channel numbers use their virtual channel numbers. There are some that are co-owned in the same market that may use a sister station's channel number, or so I've been told, and there are still a few using their cable position. However, the vast majority of stations map back to their old analog channel number, and the FCC required them to do so except in very limited circumstances.

 

[JHBrandt]

Hmm.... Fox 4, Fox 5, CBS 6, CBS 7, ABC 8, & NBC 9 are all alliterative. Do the networks generally prefer those virtual channel numbers? In D/FW we have Fox 4 and ABC 8; Tulsa has CBS 6 and ABC 8; but Houston and OKC (for example) are all mixed up.

Of course there's also Fox 14, Fox 15, CBS 16, etc.; not to mention Fox 40-59 & CBS 60-69, but I assume most virtual channel numbers for the major networks are in the 2-13 range (a legacy of the analog era),

Almost all stations that mention their channel numbers use their virtual channel numbers. There are some that are co-owned in the same market that may use a sister station's channel number, or so I've been told, and there are still a few using their cable position. However, the vast majority of stations map back to their old analog channel number, and the FCC required them to do so except in very limited circumstances.

I know that. I was asking a different question: Are there more, say, Fox stations on channels 4 & 5 than on other channels in the 2-13 range? In other words, has Fox (or CBS, ABC, or NBC) made an effort to acquire those particular channel numbers (where available in a market) just to take advantage of being able to say "Fox 4" or "Fox 5" where the "F" sound is repeated? It sounds silly but it might make a station's network affiliation a bit more memorable.

Heck, even Spanish-language networks might get in on this game. Telemundo tres (o trece o treinta), anyone?

 

[newsmark]

Do the networks generally prefer those virtual channel numbers? In D/FW we have Fox 4 and ABC 8; Tulsa has CBS 6 and ABC 8; but Houston and OKC (for example) are all mixed up.

Interesting concept, but no.

Fox owns 25 stations and only 4 of them have alliterative numbers.

Expand it out to all the affiliates and the numbers lean a little closer to your theory:

There are 229 Fox stations (affiliates and O&Os)in the U.S.
Of those, 60 have alliterative channels.
But of those 60, 5 are satellites of other stations, which means the channel number you hear on the air may be different. And 4 of them are .2 digital channels, so you probably don't hear the channel number at all.

So you have 52 out of 229 stations, 23%.

But if you look at the available channels in the analog days, (2-69), 23 of them would be alliterative with Fox. So luck of the draw would give them 1 out of 3. So there appears to be no such effort.

(BTW keep in mind some of the examples you mentioned aren't used. WFAA in Dallas never calls itself ABC8. KTUL in Tulsa doesn't call itself ABC8, either, and KOTV in Tulsa doesn't call itself CBS 6. You might hear it on the radio if the NETWORK buys ad time, but that's rare.)

 

[Kent]

I know that. I was asking a different question: Are there more, say, Fox stations on channels 4 & 5 than on other channels in the 2-13 range? In other words, has Fox (or CBS, ABC, or NBC) made an effort to acquire those particular channel numbers (where available in a market) just to take advantage of being able to say "Fox 4" or "Fox 5" where the "F" sound is repeated? It sounds silly but it might make a station's network affiliation a bit more memorable.

I don't think they specifically sought out channels 4 & 5 for Fox affiliates. Of course, Fox did seek out channels in the 2-13 range when they got the rights to football in '94. As I recall, that was part of their agreement to get football. Their efforts got them most of the old Taft group as well as most of the old Times-Mirror stations, but I believe their channel positions were purely coincidence and they were happy just to get VHF's.

 

[tmanokc]

I don't think they specifically sought out channels 4 & 5 for Fox affiliates.  Of course, Fox did seek out channels in the 2-13 range when they got the rights to football in '94.  As I recall, that was part of their agreement to get football.  Their efforts got them most of the old Taft group as well as most of the old Times-Mirror stations, but I believe their channel positions were purely coincidence and they were happy just to get VHF's.

Furthermore, the VHF stations that Fox originally got from News Corporation's purchase of Metromedia, and then with the WSVN switch in 1989 all the way through the affiliation switches of 1994-1996 through New World and other groups, were all on channels 2 and 4-13. It is basically the only "Big Four" network without a station on over-the-air channel 3 (I'm not sure, but The CW and MyNetworkTV also do not have any stations on VHF channel 3 either), so there is no "Fox 3" in existence. One of the Fox stations with alliterative number branding, WFTX, actually brands by its cable number as the other Fort Myers stations do (going by "Fox 4"), rather than their over-the-air/virtual channel number (36).