Jump to content

Welcome, Guest!

Sign In or Create my Account to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Thundershock MN

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Thundershock MN last won the day on May 6 2017

Thundershock MN had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

168 Excellent

About Thundershock MN

  • Rank
    News Director

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 1. The "Service to New Jersey" thing is way overblown and I think people read into it too much. Also, said politicians that did a lot of the fist pounding are no longer with us. 2. If I was going to place a bet I'd put majority of my chips on them simply going back to "WWOR 9". Like KTVU I think this is the one case where the calls hold some value in the market. But, that's just my opinion. And, I agree with CircleSeven that the NYC & LA stations will be the last to receive a rebranding if they decide to go all in with rebranding the MNT O&O's. Of the 4 duopoly partners that have now been rebranded I think this ranks towards the top. The blue & black looks nice and should flow with any MNT promos/imaging. But, they are also using a red and black logo/imaging in some on air promos which makes no sense to me and seems out of place from cohesion standpoint. But, I guess it could be worse. Yes, they are adding a 7pm newscast. It won't launch until later this fall. My guess is Mid-September. But, I haven't heard an exact start date or anchor team. FWIW, I was under the impression the rebrand would take place along side the Minnesota State Fair (Aug. 24 - Sept. 4.) And, They'd use the event as the "big unvailing" for the new brand. For whatever reason they choose to quietly "soft launch" last Friday night. Unlike their sister stations I don't believe any press release/news article has been put out yet and the My29 subsite is still up and running. So, I'm kind of thinking the fair will be the "official" launch. I'd expect more on said newscast and the rest of the "Fox 9+" lineup at that time. PS - Unless there has been a mass exodus recently there appears to be an inordinate amount of job openings in Houston right now....just saying.
  2. The O&O's have been playing with the scheduling for the past 3-4 years now. It started with WWOR shifting House and placing The Simpsons on Thursday nights. KCOP followed after, then WPWR. It has kind of snowballed from there. I haven't kept up but, I'm 95.7% sure more than half of the MNT O&O's are running programming out of pattern now. And, really it goes back a little further than that if you look at MNT affiliates as a whole. Fox started loosening the reigns on branding/standardization around 2011-13 if memory serves me correct. And, the allowing more stations to run out of pattern followed shortly thereafter. The affiliates realized that the "My ___" branding really didn't hold much value. The O&O's are just starting to realize what a lot already knew. MNT the programming service will be around at least another year. And, I wouldn't be that shocked if it hangs around for some time after that. IDK It may become an unbranded service. But, it's cheap to run and allows affiliates to fill 10 hours of real estate a week in one fell swoop. So, it does serve some purpose. Sure it's a crap load of off net re-runs. But, what would most of these stations fill that time with anyway.... off net re-runs. As noted above it's the branding that's garbage. It's a vestage of Fox's purchase of MySpace. If your a sister station (like the O&O's) and people view your station as a dumping ground for leftovers and second runs, etc of programming on the "senior" station then why not go whole hog and leverage that "senior" station's brand. And, generally speaking that "senior" station's brand holds a little more value. If you're going to attempt some sort of brand extension/brand synergy it might be best to use an established brand versus some flavor of the month website that will fade into obscurity almost as quickly as it came into being...just saying.
  3. Little birdie tells me WFTC is next in line. Sounds like the branding will be "Fox 9+". I find it some interesting that Fox isn't using a standard template and/or logos for these rebrands given their liking for brand standardization. If the new logo I've seen is legit they are yet again doing something a little different from the other My O&O's that have been rebranded. It appears they will keep the blue & black color scheme and use a the horizontal "Fox 9" bug logo (recolored blue & black) with a smaller "+" appended to the end. It also sounds like it will be rebranded here in the next month as well.
  4. Only the primary stream of a full power licence has must carry rights. Must carry doesn't apply to low power licences or subchannels. They can negotiate for carriage, which appears to be what Univision has done here. In any event you answered my question so, thank you I appreciate it. And, you do bring up one other point that they could co-opt WMGM's "old" cable spot if they have a spot lower in the lineup. Given WFPA-CD has carriage I'm almost wondering if this purchase is maybe to backfill and make up for the likely loss of the simulcast on WUVP. I can't see WUVP continuing the simulcast once they move to their shared facility. So, I guess this would allow them to at least make sure some of that southern portion of the market keeps OTA coverage. Welp, as it stands right now WGTW is "moving out" which I agree is a bit odd. I expected to see more channel share "move in's" like WBIN is doing...this the reverse of that. I'm guessing WGTW cares more about keeping their license (and the must carry rights) then OTA coverage. So, in that sense it doesn't matter where they are located in the DMA as long as they have an active license. Since, the shared facility doesn't cover Burlington, NJ; WGTW will be changing their COL to Millville, NJ as well. I suppose it's possible but, I just don't see them being able to pull off a "move in."
  5. I'd be very surprised if Univision is able to pull off a "move in" with WMGM. They'd would have a heck of a time moving in WMGM on their current channel (RF 36) without causing co-channel interference with WCBS, WITF and/or WTTG. They are pretty much hemmed in where they are at. And, I don't know that they can find another channel without the same or similar problem. That Northeast Corridor is pretty crowded. I am kind of curious to see what the plan is here. What is WFPA-CD's cable carriage like? Could they just be making a play to get a full power licence to leverage for improved cable carriage? One other minor item wort noting is that WGTW will be Channel Sharing with WMGM with WMGM acting as the "host".
  6. Use the FCC's Licensing and Management System (LMS). Usually, most of that will eventually trickle over to the public file/station profile. FYI - There's only one other CSA that has been officially filed with the FCC, that being KTNC. But, I expect them to slowly start trickling in now.
  7. The Boston DMA stations are phases 4 & 8. So, WBTS-LD should be able to stay on RF 46 until March 13, 2020 (the end of phase 8) at the latest. Their RF channel won't be needed for another full power licensee to move to and the wireless companies can't do much until the reclaimed bandwidth has been fully cleared in that area. So, it's status quo for the time being. I wouldn't worry about them. They'll be fine. It's 90 days from the receipt of auction proceeds for stations NOT entering into a channel sharing agreement. And, 180 days from the receipt of auction proceeds for stations entering into a channel sharing agreement. That is the absolute latest (barring a waiver, for which the FCC I set a pretty high threshold) they can remain on their pre-auction channel. But, I believe the commission is allowing stations to cease operations (or, really go silent until the license is officially surrendered) early provided all the viewer notification requirements are completed. I don't believe any stations have been paid yet so, the clock hasn't really started yet. Yep, WBIN will be sharing with WUTF (using WUTF's facilities.) Barring something totally unforseen Univision will likely be the owner of the WBIN license. There are put/call options in their agreement. I think it is safe to assume this is the "major television group" referenced in those press releases/articles back in February. So, barring Binnie finding another third party to by the license he'll likely follow through on the put option and force Univision to acquire WBIN for the agreed upon price. I don't know why Binnie would even attempt to find another suitor at this point. Plus, as it stands WBIN will only get 1.7 Mbps of bandwidth as defined in their capacity allocation portion of the agreement. So, I'm thinking it's a fait accompli Univision will end up with the license at this point. And, I'm guessing at least in the short term they will just park Grit on the WBIN license for the time being. Also, if anyone wants to read the WBIN/WUTF channel sharing agreement, here is a link to the PDF. It's also unredacted for those that care.
  8. They could just channel share with WSJV. They effectively upgrade to a full power signal. And, WSJV gets someone to help with the electric bill while maintaining their license (and must carry rights.) Win-win-win. Just to elaborate on your other post. In a lot of ways this is similar to the digital transition. WNBC didn't go away when they moved from RF 4 to RF 28 in the digital transition. Likewise, WNBC isn't going away by moving from RF 25 to RF 35. The only difference is WNJU will also be licensed to RF 35. So, they get to "share" an RF channel (or, transmitter/antenna if you will.) Too many people are making a big deal out of the "go off the air" thing. The FCC views surrendering the license and channel sharing the same in the auction context...The station is giving up their 6 MHz. That doesn't mean the station is giving up their license or becoming a "subchannel", though. They can keep their license and "shack up" on another RF Channel with another licensee or licencees.
  9. WFMZ will be channel sharing with KJWP. It was part of the asset purchase agreement. The agreement called for WFMP to enter and accept a "go off the air" bid the buyer and seller will be splitting the proceeds. The agreement also called for WFMZ to enter into a channel sharing agreement with KJWP acting as "host". So, both WFMZ and KJWP will exist just like today with the only change being they will share the KJWP transmitter/antenna. I assume it's pretty cheap to run now. They could run it from a broom closet. Only real expense is the electric bill for the transmitter.
  10. So, looking at that list quickly I only count 11 licenses/stations that are truly "going off the air." Welcome to the era of Channel Sharing Agreements. I didn't expect that many... looking at that list some of the "Spectrum speculators" entered into Channel Sharing Agreements as well which is interesting. broadcastfan9751 summed it up well (re-quoted below.) I think we really need to stop thinking about 1 licence/station per transmitter/antenna. We are entering a world where one transmitter/antenna will house multiple licenses/stations.
  11. WBTS-LD is licensed as a low power digital station. WRT the bolded, that was the original plan. They intended to have NBC & Cozi on 8.x and Telemundo & Telexitos on 60.x with the subchannels differing depending on if the signal is coming from the WNEU or WBTS-LD transmitter, like WCAU/WWSI or KNTV/KSTS. Only issue is they kind of f'd up selecting 8 as the virtual channel number for WBTS-LD (and, refusing to select a different virtual channel number prior to launch) as WMTW overlaps WNEU. So, their plan was quickly shut down by the FCC In theory, yes. A licensee could change/move a call sign to match the previous station. And, they could ask for a virtual channel waiver to maintain continuity and avoid viewer confusion. A couple good examples would be WBTS-LP & WBND-LD or KJCT. However, in this instance if WBTS-LD were "moved" to a full power station like WMFP they would likely be unable to obtain a waiver to move virtual channel 8. As kdex86 pointed out most (if not all) full power signals in the market overlap either WMTW or WTNH. IMO they should have went with a land mobile RF channel (14-20) or, 37 for their virtual channel number...no chance of conflict. It's almost like nobody thought about it until the last minute and they just picked something (ie: a low number) without putting much thought into it. Heck, they had to get another virtual channel waiver for the simulcast on WMFP. They should be using 8.x, the virtual channel number of the license/station being simulcast (or, WMFP's VC of 62.x). But, they can't due to the overlap with WNTH and WMTW. Details guys...it's all about the details. One other item I'd like to note is that low power stations are not protected from displacement in the incentive auction. So, WBTS-LD as a low power station could end up without an RF channel to operate on post repack. Of course, they could end up getting an RF channel to operate on post repack or "move to full power" by acquiring another full power license in the market. As such, the use of WBTS-LD as it currently stands is clearly a "stopgap" for the time being until things shake out post auction. I guess all I'm saying is things are still a little "fluid" and can't really be considered "permanent" yet.
  12. First, I think it's fairly safe to say (In my opinion at least) that the NBC/WHDH split leaked vary early on. Remember vary early on the rumors were NBC was moving the affiliation to NECN and going cable only. NBC likely had a plan (or, plans) and at least a rough outline then but nothing firm or finalized yet. They were kind of forced into acknowledging the shift way earlier than they likely anticipated because info was being leaked and some of it was incorrect (ie: moving to NECN) and needed to be refuted. So, they we're all ready behind the 8 ball from the start with regards to the negative press due to the erroneous info and having to comment before anything was finalized...plus, it's Comcast and some people have an negative view to start with. Second, I think the plan all along has been to get "NBC Boston" on a second full power stick one way or another. The incentive auction was slow to get started. Remember its start was pushed back on a couple occasions. And, now that it is under way it has labored along with likely a couple more months (at least) to go. That hampers their ability to really do anything while it is on going. I'm sure when they made the decision a year or two ago go O&O in Boston the timing looked good. But, the timing didn't go their way. Isn't it pretty much on record at this point they did offer to buy WHDH for $200M (or, there about) and Ed's asking price was extremely high ($500M)? Why would they overpay like that when all they need is a transmitter? It will all work out for them in the end so there's no need to waste money. FWIW, I'll go on record now...I believe NBC will buy WMFP post-auction. The money being offered to WMFP likey fall below what NBC was offering pre-auction. NRJ isn't in business to run stations long term they bought them to flip for a profit. Given how the auction is playing out, flipping the station/transmitter to NBC post-auction might be more profitable.
  13. Zero chance of that happening. KFXF is not needed as part of the reverse auction and wasn't even offered an opening bid price. It will either be shut down or donated/sold on the cheap.
  14. Whew… So, I think WBTS-LD will be just fine. But, I do have a few random thoughts/questions. First, I'm curious what some of the Canadian MVPDs will do come Jan. 1. WBTS-LD isn't authorized for carriage in Canada yet. It will be interesting to see if the CRTC approves Bell’s request to add WBTS-LD to the list of “non-Canadian programming services authorized for distribution” in time. I'm assuming WDIV would just get plugged in for the time being. For all the hand wringing that's been done over how this move shafts “OTA only” viewers I'd be curious how many actually negatively impacted. And, what the net loss/gain is. They're obviously gaining some “extra” OTA carriage in the northern part of the market via WNEU that isn't covered with WHDH’s OTA signal. Just be interesting to know. I still think they will try to get WBTS-LD on a full power stick post-auction. In fact, Mike St. Peter, president and general manager of NBC Boston, NECN, and Telemundo Boston, made the following comments last month in the Boston Globe: “We have come a long way. We continue to look for how we can improve over-the-air service,” he said. “When the spectrum auction finishes, there will be more options available to our company for that.” Something in my gut makes me think they were originally going to use VC 10 over the air before someone either WJAR or (likely) the FCC pointed out that wouldn't work. And, they pivoted at the last minute. Nothing concrete to really base this on. I just find the channel 10 cable/satellite placement odd. What's on cable 8 anyway? Finally, quick funny story with regards to their virtual channel. Remember when NBCU put out that press release stating that NBC Boston “will be available on channel 8 or 8.2 depending on location.” It was assumed (correctly) by some that they planned to map the simulcast on WNEU to 8.2. Only problem with that is WMTW which also uses VC 8 and has a contour that overlaps with WNEU. So, their council sent an email to the FCC to try and obtain an “official” ok and confirm the IDs to be used. And, they were shut down in less than 3 hours. Might want to have your ducks in row first... just saying. It launched on DirecTV last Thursday. Also, WNEU is now only available via HD(/MPEG4) equipment. WBTS-LD inherited WNEU's SD slot from WNEU.
  15. [quote name='rkolsen']Maybe @Thundershock MN can provide some insight to this but don't FCC rules require the virtual channel number to be equivalent to their analog channel number?[/QUOTE] So, I'm a bit late to the party and this will likely be long winded but here it goes... Yes, for the most part licensees are required to use their old analog number as their virtual channel number. Raymie already alluded to some of this earlier in the thread. But, just to expand a bit licensees are assigned a virtual channel in the 2-69 range as follows: [LIST=1] [*]For a licensee with an analog license existing at the time it commences digital service, the major virtual channel number shall be set to match the old analog RF channel number existing at the time it commenced digital service. [*]For a new licensee without an existing analog license at the time it commenced digital service, the major virtual channel number shall be set to the FCC-assigned RF channel number for ATSC digital TV broadcast. See: KDCU-DT or WWTW as examples. [*]If the RF channel assigned to a licensee for digital ATSC broadcast is changed for any reason, the major virtual channel number used by that licensee shall not change. See: KTVT & WHDH as examples. [*]If an RF channel previously allotted for analog TV in a market is assigned to a newly-licensed DTV licensee in that market, the newly-licensed DTV licensee shall use, as its major virtual channel, the number of the DTV RF channel originally assigned to the previous analog TV licensee of the assigned channel. See: WMDE (conflicts w/ WTTG) or as Raymie pointed out, K26KJ-D (conflicts w/ KINT) as examples. [*]If a licensee owns or controls broadcast licenses for two or more different RF channels having overlapping Service Areas, a common major virtual channel number may be used for all services on all channels. In this case, the major virtual channel number shall be as determined in mandatory requirements 1-4 above for any one of the RF channels. The values in the minor virtual channel number fields shall be partitioned to ensure that there is no duplication in the DTV Service Area, including the overlapping DTV Service Areas of other licensees using that same virtual channel number. See: KTCA/KTCI, KSTP/KSTC or KMSP/WFTC as examples [*]A licensee may include in the transmitted multiplex programming originating from a different licensee. In this case, the major/minor virtual channel numbers of the original broadcast may be used to label those services, as long as the major/minor virtual channel number combinations are coordinated in the local Service Area to avoid conflicts in the channel numbers. See:WCAU & WWSI as an example. (Although co-owned in this example the stations don't have to be under common ownership/control.) [*]For a licensee’s signal carried by a digital TV translator, the major/minor virtual channel numbers shall remain the same as the original broadcast station unless the major virtual channel conflicts with a licensee operating in the Service Area of the translator. In that case, the translator shall change the major virtual number to a non-conflicting number. [*]The FCC allows waivers of the PSIP standard on a case by case basis to resolve "unique situations" thereby assigning a different virtual channel to a licensee. See: KAXT-CD (waiver for VC 1), [URL='http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=45006']WDFL-LD (waiver for VC 18)[/URL][URL='http://, [url=http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=35363]WMYS-LP & WBND-LD (waiver to swap VCs 34 & 57)'], [url=http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=35363]WMYS-LP & WBND-LD (waiver to swap VCs 34 & 57)[/URL][/url], [URL='http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=53875']KGBY & KJCT-LP (waiver to swap VCs 8 & 20)[/URL], [URL='https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/dataentry/api/download/attachment/25076ff352a8be4c0152d0b0bf5600b4']KOTA, KEVN-LD & KHME (waiver to swap VCs 3, 7 & 23)[/URL], [URL='https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/dataentry/api/download/attachment/25076ff35637e5610157fce4d2980c5b']KSNV & KHSV (waiver to swap VCs 3 & 21...albeit a little over a year and a half after the fact.)[/URL] [/LIST] And, just for completeness they don't approve every request. See:[URL='https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/dataentry/api/download/attachment/25076f915406a04f0154b960f78f0940'] KGSA-LD (denied request to use VC 21)[/URL], [URL='https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-662A1.pdf'] WJLP (denied their “alternative proposal” to use VC 3.10)[/URL] and [URL='https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/dataentry/api/download/attachment/25076ff355269af0015597938332068f'] KVLY (denied their request to use VC 4 for CBS programming.)[/URL] Then of course you have that small handful of stations that as far as I can tell seemingly don't care and choose to do whatever they want. See: KAIL, WBOC & WRLM. There is also the ability to use virtual channels 70-99 within the ATSC standard. Although, I'd say the way it’s use laid out it’s more of a “loose framework.” Broadcasters can use it for “other services” which they don't want identified with main channel. Very early in the digital transition USDTV, an “OTA cable” service provider, leased space from various broadcast channels for their service and mapped all the channels under a common major virtual channel of 99 for example. Why AirBox doesn't currently do this I don't know. And, Tribune was looking to use VC 75 early on in the digital transition. The rumor was they might map all their stations under a common VC. Obviously, that never came to fruition so, we’ll never really know what the plan was. With regards to WBTS-LD[URL='http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=45006'] they were [/URL][URL='https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/dataentry/api/download/attachment/25076ff35637e5610157fce0e3f50c59']granted a waiver[/URL]. Because they were displaced (a couple times) in the original digital transition the FCC views WBTS-LD as a station transitioning from analog channel 46. Normally, they would use their analog channel number (46) as the virtual channel. But, WWDP is already using virtual channel 46 so they can't use that. The next step (see #2 above) would be to use WWDPs RF channel (10) as their virtual channel. However, that wouldn't work either as their would be overlap in the service contour with WJAR causing a conflict there as well. So, not having an option as defined within the PSIP standard they picked a virtual channel number that wouldn't conflict with any neighboring stations (8) and petitioned the FCC for a waiver. With all that said I’m still of the opinion prior allowing a licensee to “pick” their own virtual channel as part of a waiver request to resolve a conflict the FCC should require a station to do one of the following: Either, use channel 37 (zero chance of a conflict) or use a land mobile RF channel number (14-20) for that market, if that area has a land mobile allocation. Heck, if push came to shove you could even add Channel 1 in there as an option, too. But, I digress.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.