-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
That ticking sound? That's the clock starting to run on 87.7.
- Thread starter DeadElvis
- Start date
KirkSherwood said:Zach said:If you've never had the opportunity to hear the digital spillover of a channel 6 station on an FM radio, it sounds like the hash from HD sidebands, only much, much stronger. Last time I was in Birmingham, WUOA-DT 6 was so strong it stopped the scan on my car radio!
Interesting. I wouldn't *think* a DTV station would stop the scan on a FM radio. The only carrier in the channel is on 82.31MHz -- I doubt your car radio tunes that low(grin!) -- the remaining power is spread evenly throughout the channel.
But it is sufficiently stronger than an open channel that I suppose it *might* stop the scan..
_________________________________________________
Regarding the HAAT of WPGF-LP, whoever posted 682' is right.
Regarding WUOA using the old WBRC antenna, it isn't. They're VERY close but not quite the same site, and the WUOA antenna is about 80 feet lower.
DeadElvis said:You opine that upon the change, lawsuits will follow. You may be right about that.
Might be right―Really?
Of course, the FCC would [actually] have to request a rules change―they’ve already had how many years to accomplish that? I’ve lost count. At this rate you will need to man-up and purchase a box of new batteries for your tick-tock-clock. . .
Well, Mr. Sherwood...
If you will go back to the top of the string here, you will note that the Commission has already sent down a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Here's a link:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0917/FCC-10-172A1.pdf
Go to page 5, ¶10. The Commission writes:
With those factors in mind, we seek comment on whether to adopt an analog shutoff date
in 2012, giving low power television stations approximately three years after the June 12, 2009 full-power
transition date to convert to digital operation.
So, it would seem the Commission is "request[ing] a rules change." Doesn't it?
Now, I won't bother boring you with a lecture on informal rulemaking in Administrative Law. It's a bit esoteric for this forum. But, trust me. This means they know what they want to do. The Comment Period is usually a formality.
As Ke$ha would say, "TiK ToK."
DE, J.D., LL.M.
If you will go back to the top of the string here, you will note that the Commission has already sent down a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Here's a link:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0917/FCC-10-172A1.pdf
Go to page 5, ¶10. The Commission writes:
With those factors in mind, we seek comment on whether to adopt an analog shutoff date
in 2012, giving low power television stations approximately three years after the June 12, 2009 full-power
transition date to convert to digital operation.
So, it would seem the Commission is "request[ing] a rules change." Doesn't it?
Now, I won't bother boring you with a lecture on informal rulemaking in Administrative Law. It's a bit esoteric for this forum. But, trust me. This means they know what they want to do. The Comment Period is usually a formality.
As Ke$ha would say, "TiK ToK."
DE, J.D., LL.M.
“Therefore, we seek comment on whether adoption of an analog termination by the end of 2015―would be more appropriate and less disruptive. . ."
The FCC Memorandum explains why 2015 is often discussed in terms of “by then who knows what will happen”―given the DC’s culture of compromise
It will be interesting to read the comments from the various law firms. Game on.
The FCC Memorandum explains why 2015 is often discussed in terms of “by then who knows what will happen”―given the DC’s culture of compromise
It will be interesting to read the comments from the various law firms. Game on.
That's actually not correct. Whether 2012 or 2015 is chosen, a date certain will soon be a Rule (note the capital R). Once the Rule is in place, it has the weight of law. For that to change would require:
1. A new Rulemaking procedure, which requires a new NRPM, Comment Period, etc.
2. Congressional intervention.
While I can't speak for Congress, administrative agencies rarely go through this process twice. It undermines predictability in the law, which is something all legislative and quasi-legislative bodies should consider, and frankly, such agencies can be a bit lazy. Again, the rules are what the rules are; once in place, they should be left alone.
Yes, the comments may be interesting. One never knows what they will say. But, the Commission is really only required to "consider" them, which basically means they must read them. That's all.
Still, now that you understand that the Sun is setting on these back-door radio stations, you can file a Comment. It's not just for lawyers, even laymen can. I have filed several. Here's one, to show you what they look like:
http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2004/04/06/5511238364.html
Have fun with it. Cheers.
DE
1. A new Rulemaking procedure, which requires a new NRPM, Comment Period, etc.
2. Congressional intervention.
While I can't speak for Congress, administrative agencies rarely go through this process twice. It undermines predictability in the law, which is something all legislative and quasi-legislative bodies should consider, and frankly, such agencies can be a bit lazy. Again, the rules are what the rules are; once in place, they should be left alone.
Yes, the comments may be interesting. One never knows what they will say. But, the Commission is really only required to "consider" them, which basically means they must read them. That's all.
Still, now that you understand that the Sun is setting on these back-door radio stations, you can file a Comment. It's not just for lawyers, even laymen can. I have filed several. Here's one, to show you what they look like:
http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2004/04/06/5511238364.html
Have fun with it. Cheers.
DE
... And, of course, the Rule could be stayed by a federal judge (or ALJ). But, again, that requires a better argument than economic hardship.
A judge will likely only be swayed by an argument based on flaws in the rulemaking process, or some Constitutional argument. And, again, the full-power guys, who were taken into transition kicking and screaming, failed to win on the merits.
DE
A judge will likely only be swayed by an argument based on flaws in the rulemaking process, or some Constitutional argument. And, again, the full-power guys, who were taken into transition kicking and screaming, failed to win on the merits.
DE
I heard from an engineering firm conversing with the FCC, their take is that the FCC will embrace something less than a smack-down declaration―however, at the end of every conversation they always hedge with “but with the FCC, ones never knows.”
And while the rules are what they are (or will be), there is always that exception, ala Grandfather status. or perhaps a compromise, as an earlier post noted, “. . . this is a loophole in the FCC rules allowing stations to run digital video and analog audio so long as they didn't also run digital audio.”
Personally, I hope they work it out where 87 staffs stay employed and 87 investors keep broadcasting without the hassle of sinking $ into the deep hole of lawsuits.
And while the rules are what they are (or will be), there is always that exception, ala Grandfather status. or perhaps a compromise, as an earlier post noted, “. . . this is a loophole in the FCC rules allowing stations to run digital video and analog audio so long as they didn't also run digital audio.”
Personally, I hope they work it out where 87 staffs stay employed and 87 investors keep broadcasting without the hassle of sinking $ into the deep hole of lawsuits.
Again, Mr. Sherwood...
Please read the NRPM. There will be no grandfathering. That's the point. The FCC wishes to get out of the analog TV business. For various reasons. That, Sir, will be a "smackdown." They're done.
Sure. You can posit odd outcomes. Heck; the Sun could turn into a bran muffin. But, the chances of those things happening are remote.
I have beaten this horse to death. Cheers.
DE
Please read the NRPM. There will be no grandfathering. That's the point. The FCC wishes to get out of the analog TV business. For various reasons. That, Sir, will be a "smackdown." They're done.
Sure. You can posit odd outcomes. Heck; the Sun could turn into a bran muffin. But, the chances of those things happening are remote.
I have beaten this horse to death. Cheers.
DE
Do feel free to touch base in 2015. Until then, keep it on 87.7.
Interesting. I wouldn't *think* a DTV station would stop the scan on a FM radio.
Zach's right: happened to me tonight on I59 while I was weaving around a cluster of Talladega-bound RVs, at the same time seeing if there was anything on 88.1 (proposed Bessemer upgrade). Sure 'nuff, scan on my Ford Edge stopped on something hissing at me on 87.7.
Might have to break out the Anritsu (never leave home without it) to see what's coming off of Red Mountain...
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.