Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Thundershock MN

Member
  • Content Count

    570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

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
  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
  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
  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 simulcas
  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
  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 ente
  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.) T
  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 cha
  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
  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 i
  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 analo

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.