Wilmington DTV transition is here

[Markxxx]

I asked the owner of the building about an antenna, but his attitude is, "get cable," or move. Since the rent is so cheap I'll get cable as it'd cost me more than $21/month to move. Still it is a bit irksome you have to pay for TV now. Oh well I guess that's the price of progress

I wonder about rain, my converter box only gets three channels and two are usually pixilated, but WLS-TV (Analog 7 / Digital 52) comes in strong all the time, except when it rains, then it breaks up a lot.

As for hurricanes there's radio, I've lived in hurricane areas and always used radio. Most often the power goes anyhow and unless you got a battery operated TV, it doesn't help anyway.

 

[Poledo]

When WKRG in Mobile was doing wall to wall coverage of Hurricane Gustav last week one of the anchors when on a rant about how nobody's portable TV would work next Hurricane season. The rant went on about how the new DTV portables were impractical and that cable usually went off before or at the same time that the power goes out, so people will have to go back to listening to the radio for Hurricane coverage. Apparently they've been thinking about this for awhile because they now have about 20 radio stations lined up to simulcast when a hurricane threatens the area (as compared to about 5 in previous years).
Maybe hurricane tracking maps, and latitude and longitude announcements will make a comeback for a few years until wireless internet connectivity gives us the option to watch storm updates on our laptops.

 

[TexasTom]

Take Tucson, Arizona for instance. KGUN owner Journal Broadcast recently got a waiver to purchase KWBA Sierra Vista. It's the second duopoly (KMSB/KTTU is the other) in the market that is technically too small for two duopolies. Once everything is completed, KWBA will move out of its north Tucson storefront facilities and into KGUN's east Tucson studio, saving money. KWBA is supposed to start a newscast, which they never had before. There's no question in my mind that KWBA would have shut down, leaving Tucson with one fewer TV station, and Sierra Vista without its only full-power station (their only other stations are a KVOA translator, a KHRR translator, and a TBN station whose signal is nearly non-existent). KWBA was a failing station, and rules outlawing duopolies would have sealed its doom.

Sometimes, the best bet is just to late a failing station go dark. Really, why should there be a guarantee that stations that are not economically viable will get propped up with rules changes and waivers from the FCC?

Back in the days before duopolies were accepted, stations did occasionally go dark. In Washington state (where I grew up), examples of failing stations in the late eighties were KCWT/27 in Wenatchee and KSKN/22 in Spokane (the latter has since returned to the air - as part of a duopoly). In the mid-seventies, KTVW/13 in Tacoma actually went dark for over a year and returned as a public TV station for several years (a school district bought in on the cheap in bankruptcy court).

Consider that when we allow stations to fail, we also allow the opportunity for entrepreneurs to go in and acquire a station for cheap. In some cases, the results can be amazing. Consider the empire that Ted Turner built, and realize that he started that media empire with a couple of failing UHF indies in Atlanta and Charlotte. Imagine if duopolies had been allowed in 40 years ago and those stations had instead been acquired by their competitors?

As for the new newscast on KWBA, so what? While competing news operations can be a good thing, this duopoly will not create a competing news operation, but just provide another channel for an existing newsroom. It's not like it represents any sort of new and unique perspective on local news, but rather will just be the same news product that airs on KGUN.

Bottom line: let them fail, instead of propping up the market with duopolies and waivers. It might just result in a few instances where an entrepreneur can come in and inject some new ideas and operating philosophies into a business that is getting pretty stale.

 

[jal41]

Re: Failing TV stations

Except it doesn't always work that way in real life. Take Tucson, Arizona for instance. KGUN owner Journal Broadcast recently got a waiver to purchase KWBA Sierra Vista. It's the second duopoly (KMSB/KTTU is the other) in the market that is technically too small for two duopolies. Once everything is completed, KWBA will move out of its north Tucson storefront facilities and into KGUN's east Tucson studio, saving money. KWBA is supposed to start a newscast, which they never had before. There's no question in my mind that KWBA would have shut down, leaving Tucson with one fewer TV station, and Sierra Vista without its only full-power station (their only other stations are a KVOA translator, a KHRR translator, and a TBN station whose signal is nearly non-existent). KWBA was a failing station, and rules outlawing duopolies would have sealed its doom.

KWBA may be an example of where it is OK for someone to take it over. Look at the story of WNEG-TV in Toccoa, GA (a small town between Atlanta and Greenville, SC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNEG-TV
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1997/da972292.txt (1997 sale to Spartan Radiocasting)

WNEG-TV started as a sister to a local radio station (WNEG-AM) in the early 1980's. This station is located in at town of just under 10,000 people. Unforunantly, a lack of money and preference for the network stations from Atlanta and Greenville doomed the station from the start. Even the local cable system dropped the station (this was before must carry). A broker was hired in 1990 to sell it (even thought the broker warned the owner it would be impossible), and the broker yielded no results. Three more brokers followed (the last one was a con man).

In 1995, just as the owners were going to pull the plug, Spartan Radiocasting (owner of WSPA-TV in Spartanburg) leased the station. This was the good luck the station needed, as since WAGA switched to Fox, Spartan was able to arrange to make the station a CBS affiliate.

A couple of years later, Spartan bought the station outright. But what they did (unlike with the current KGUN/KWBA case) was keep the studio in Toccoa, and start a local newscast. That newscast attracted an anchor from Atlanta, Chuck Moore, who went to WNEG-TV when he left WXIA in the late 90's. In 2000, Media General acquired WSPA-TV and WNEG-TV. Since then, Media General has pumped the needed (although not massive) resources to keep the station serving the local Northeast Georgia community from a studio in Northeast Georgia.

Currently, WNEG-TV is being sold to the University of Georgia. While this will end WNEG-TV as a Toccoa-based CBS station (the studios will move to UGA's campus in Athens), the station will broadcast niche and specialty programming 24/7.

Had the owners tendered the license to the FCC 13 years ago, UGA's new TV station would not happen. In some instances, a duopoly (given how the owners will program and locate studios) works out better for the public.

 

[Markxxx]

I think it is a good idea to prop up a failing station IF (big IF here) it is in an underserved area. I mean cities like LA, Chicago, SF have lots of TV options, a small city like Yuma would be hit harder by the loss of a station.

I guess the issue is, since TV stations are so darn expensive to get up and running and operate, if you let the allocation just sit there dark, no one is using it. So the government is under pressure to do something rather than let a resource go unused. If no one, who can or is willing, to do something productive or local with the channel it's better to have anything using it rather than let it go to waste.

I don't know if that's true, but that is my guess to the line of reasoning to prop up stations

 

[dhett]

Back in the days before duopolies were accepted, stations did occasionally go dark. In Washington state (where I grew up), examples of failing stations in the late eighties were KCWT/27 in Wenatchee and KSKN/22 in Spokane (the latter has since returned to the air - as part of a duopoly). In the mid-seventies, KTVW/13 in Tacoma actually went dark for over a year and returned as a public TV station for several years (a school district bought in on the cheap in bankruptcy court).

Consider that when we allow stations to fail, we also allow the opportunity for entrepreneurs to go in and acquire a station for cheap. In some cases, the results can be amazing. Consider the empire that Ted Turner built, and realize that he started that media empire with a couple of failing UHF indies in Atlanta and Charlotte. Imagine if duopolies had been allowed in 40 years ago and those stations had instead been acquired by their competitors?

Back in the days before duopolies were accepted, the TV audience was much less segmented. They didn't have 100+ channel cable or satellite systems, so there was less competition.

In Flagstaff, Arizona, KTFL failed two years ago. It ain't comin' back. KCFG is in danger of failing. KNAZ has been stripped to the bare bones and now just functions as a full-power translator for KPNX. KFPH is a Spanish-language full-power translator of a Class A Phoenix station.

Had KWBA gone under, it wouldn't be coming back either. It was allocated to Sierra Vista, about 75 miles by road SE of Tucson, so while all of the other Tucson-area stations broadcast from the Catalina Mtns N of the city or the Tucson Mtns W of the city, KWBA has to broadcast from the Santa Rita Mtns SE of the city, meaning it covers less of the metro area. It was viable as a standalone station while it had the AZ Diamondback broadcasts, but once they lost the baseball rights to cable TV, they were no longer viable. That wouldn't have been an issue back in the day.

Then again, if market forces were really allowed to work, there wouldn't be a limit on duopolies.

 

[groze]

I asked the owner of the building about an antenna, but his attitude is, "get cable," or move. Since the rent is so cheap I'll get cable as it'd cost me more than $21/month to move. Still it is a bit irksome you have to pay for TV now. Oh well I guess that's the price of progress

I wonder about rain, my converter box only gets three channels and two are usually pixilated, but WLS-TV (Analog 7 / Digital 52) comes in strong all the time, except when it rains, then it breaks up a lot.

As for hurricanes there's radio, I've lived in hurricane areas and always used radio. Most often the power goes anyhow and unless you got a battery operated TV, it doesn't help anyway.

According to the TV act, apartments and home owners association can not restrict a Satellite, Antenna or Cable. The Landlords can restrict where to put the antenna, satellite, or cable line as long as it does not block the signal. You have to pay for the installation cost.

If you are in town that receive tv signals, try rabbit ears from Wal-mart the Cheap rca one with Uhf/VHF antenna. I read some people got signals from stations 50 or more miles away with just rabbit ears.

 

[Markxxx]

I asked the owner of the building about an antenna, but his attitude is, "get cable," or move. Since the rent is so cheap I'll get cable as it'd cost me more than $21/month to move. Still it is a bit irksome you have to pay for TV now. Oh well I guess that's the price of progress

I wonder about rain, my converter box only gets three channels and two are usually pixilated, but WLS-TV (Analog 7 / Digital 52) comes in strong all the time, except when it rains, then it breaks up a lot.

As for hurricanes there's radio, I've lived in hurricane areas and always used radio. Most often the power goes anyhow and unless you got a battery operated TV, it doesn't help anyway.

According to the TV act, apartments and home owners association can not restrict a Satellite, Antenna or Cable. The Landlords can restrict where to put the antenna, satellite, or cable line as long as it does not block the signal. You have to pay for the installation cost.

If you are in town that receive tv signals, try rabbit ears from Wal-mart the Cheap rca one with Uhf/VHF antenna. I read some people got signals from stations 50 or more miles away with just rabbit ears.

Well I rent month to month so that would be out, cause any problems out you go.

The other thing is in cities like Chicago, NYC or Philly, the building are REALLY close, I mean my window lies about 3 feet from the next building. You have seen row houses and the like. So that leaves the roof as the only place to put a dish or antenna is the roof, which is not a common area, so you SOL.

If you have never lived in older dense cities, most people don't realize this. I have tried various kinds of indoor antennas (Silver Sensors etc) but nothing, just the three stations.

I kind of wonder what allows WLS-TV (digital 52) always come in while the others WTTW (digital 47) and WGN (digital 19) only come in pixilated and spotty, and the others not come in at all.

Since all the digitals in Chicago operate off Sears Tower and I'm only 5 NW of it, it must be a combination of power and placement of transmitter on Sears Tower's antenna.

Oh well what are you gonna do right

 

[groze]

Mark,
I wonder if it has anything with some stations not operating at full power. Maybe one month after Feb 17, 2009 they might have stronger signals. I say give them a month before you consider a bigger antenna. This gives them time to fix any problems and then you will know if you need an outside/Inside large antenna or just rabbit ears.

Technically, they can not throw you out for that but they would most likely think of something else.

 

[TexasTom]

Back in the days before duopolies were accepted, the TV audience was much less segmented. They didn't have 100+ channel cable or satellite systems, so there was less competition.

True...but that doesn't mean that stand-alone broadcast stations couldn't find a way of competing. Especially considering that the staffing and equipment costs for a TV station can be substantially lower than was the case 20 and 30 years ago.

In Flagstaff, Arizona, KTFL failed two years ago. It ain't comin' back.

Place some of the blame for that on the FCC, and much of the blame on the digital transition -- because the FCC is generally not accepting new construction permit applications (with a small number of exceptions) until after the digital transition is complete. And even then, they will except applications only at widely spaced intervals in order to maximize the response and milk the most money out of the resultant auctions between competing applicants. Far different from the days when an interested applicant could file for a vacant channel on a "first come, first serve" basis.

Then again, if market forces were really allowed to work, there wouldn't be a limit on duopolies.

As long as there are a limited number of channels for would-be broadcasters to use, market forces can't operate entirely freely. Consequently, ownership regulations need to balance a "hands-off" approach against the limited number of channels in a manner that hopefully maximizes competition and maximizes the number of independently owned stations.

Ironically enough, the FCC's traditional approach to ownership -- allowing duopolies in large markets, generally prohibiting them in smaller makrets -- may well be backwards of what a sensible approach would be. A station that goes dark in Phoenix (or Dallas, or whichever major market) will almost certainly find someone interested in taking over its operation at the right place. That's less likely to be the case in a small market that has too many stations to begin with.

 

[mleach]

I asked the owner of the building about an antenna, but his attitude is, "get cable," or move. Since the rent is so cheap I'll get cable as it'd cost me more than $21/month to move. Still it is a bit irksome you have to pay for TV now. Oh well I guess that's the price of progress

I wonder about rain, my converter box only gets three channels and two are usually pixilated, but WLS-TV (Analog 7 / Digital 52) comes in strong all the time, except when it rains, then it breaks up a lot.

As for hurricanes there's radio, I've lived in hurricane areas and always used radio. Most often the power goes anyhow and unless you got a battery operated TV, it doesn't help anyway.

According to the TV act, apartments and home owners association can not restrict a Satellite, Antenna or Cable. The Landlords can restrict where to put the antenna, satellite, or cable line as long as it does not block the signal. You have to pay for the installation cost.

If you are in town that receive tv signals, try rabbit ears from Wal-mart the Cheap rca one with Uhf/VHF antenna. I read some people got signals from stations 50 or more miles away with just rabbit ears.

You are so right about rabbit years !!! I have in the past received signals as far away as 200 miles from mine.

About that TV Act....what about when an apartment makes "deals" such as "only Comcast is allowed" for example?

I havent seen much of that here in Virginia but when I visted my friends in Denver recently and it seems the latter is very commonplace. Some apartment buildings say "only Comcast" while others allow Dish Network but not Direct TV, yet for others its Quest/Direct TV but Comcast isn't allowed.

The apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado ( suberb of Denver ) my friends are only allowed to have have either Comcast or Dish Network. Right in their lease it says "No Direct TV". How in the world is this legal?

 

[groze]

I asked the owner of the building about an antenna, but his attitude is, "get cable," or move. Since the rent is so cheap I'll get cable as it'd cost me more than $21/month to move. Still it is a bit irksome you have to pay for TV now. Oh well I guess that's the price of progress

I wonder about rain, my converter box only gets three channels and two are usually pixilated, but WLS-TV (Analog 7 / Digital 52) comes in strong all the time, except when it rains, then it breaks up a lot.

As for hurricanes there's radio, I've lived in hurricane areas and always used radio. Most often the power goes anyhow and unless you got a battery operated TV, it doesn't help anyway.

According to the TV act, apartments and home owners association can not restrict a Satellite, Antenna or Cable. The Landlords can restrict where to put the antenna, satellite, or cable line as long as it does not block the signal. You have to pay for the installation cost.

If you are in town that receive tv signals, try rabbit ears from Wal-mart the Cheap rca one with Uhf/VHF antenna. I read some people got signals from stations 50 or more miles away with just rabbit ears.

You are so right about rabbit years !!! I have in the past received signals as far away as 200 miles from mine.

About that TV Act....what about when an apartment makes "deals" such as "only Comcast is allowed" for example?

I havent seen much of that here in Virginia but when I visted my friends in Denver recently and it seems the latter is very commonplace. Some apartment buildings say "only Comcast" while others allow Dish Network but not Direct TV, yet for others its Quest/Direct TV but Comcast isn't allowed.

The apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado ( suberb of Denver ) my friends are only allowed to have have either Comcast or Dish Network. Right in their lease it says "No Direct TV". How in the world is this legal?

Myself, I wouldn't of moved in and informed them they may be violating Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act overrides contracts and or any other agreement from the way I understand it.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

The only problem is if you tried to enforce the rule, the landlord would most likely force the people out for another reason. However, community associations can not force people to move, unless they want to buy the house.