Jump to content

At the FCC


CircleSeven

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

It's been a minute. But two new petitions today.

 

One, Gray has filed a petition to switch another one of its newly-acquired stations from last year's auction from VHF to UHF.

 

KWNV in Winnemucca, NV is vacating VHF 7 for UHF 16.

 

Previously, Gray filed to switch its Yuma signal from VHF 11 to UHF 27.

 

The other, NPG has filed to switch Idaho Falls station KIFI from VHF 8 to UHF 18.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just saw this license to cover, but apparently (since the end of last month) KTUL has lit up RF 14.

 

The station has reminded viewers to rescan today (6/27). That means that grace period for keeping VHF 10 on will end today.

 

Staying with Sinclair, Nebraska's KHGI is a step closer to lighting up its UHF 18 signal. They recently installed its new antenna

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things.

 

WFVX-LD has completed its transition last week (6/30), leaving RF 22 and now channel-sharing with WVII on RF 7.

 

This clears the way for PBS outlet WMEB to move to from VHF 9 to UHF 22.

 

Also, three R&Os & one NPRM.

R&Os:

NPRM:

  • WKNX (7 > 21) - (7/20)
Edited by CircleSeven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
17 hours ago, abric said:

I have a question that's been bugging me lately. Can a tv station use their physical digital channel number in their branding rather than their virtual channel?

Several stations have switched to physical channel branding and that hasn't been an issue for the FCC as long as it doesn't conflict with a virtual channel already in-market or adjacent, though they've been more hands off about that (re: NBC 10 Boston compared to WJAR actual 10 in Providence; as 10 is just a cable position and they're otherwise 15 OTA, that's something that doesn't get FCC notice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, abric said:

I have a question that's been bugging me lately. Can a tv station use their physical digital channel number in their branding rather than their virtual channel?

Well, KSWB San Diego is channel 69, but brands on air as "Fox 5 San Diego". Same goes for KNSD Channel 39, which calls itself "NBC 7 San Diego"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would Washington D.C. and Richmond be deemed as adjacent to each other? Meaning if hypothetically a station has a virtual channel 12 in D.C., would it conflict with the same virtual channel in Richmond?

Edited by 24994J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While they’re adjacent, I’d think they’re far enough apart to have shared virtual channels, but I’d let the FCC decide that one,  

 

But then you have to consider Philadelphia/New York/Hartford, where you have duplicate Virtual Channels:

New York/Philadelphia share 2,4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (with both 2 and 8 also in the Hartford/New Haven market) - and that’s on the “VHF” band. “UHF” virtual channel numbers (14-69) also have a lot of duplication…

 

Whereas DC and Baltimore should be a “No Go” in my opinion, considering the main transmitters are about 30 miles apart…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2023 at 2:34 PM, NYTV said:

Well, KSWB San Diego is channel 69, but brands on air as "Fox 5 San Diego". Same goes for KNSD Channel 39, which calls itself "NBC 7 San Diego"

The “Fox 5 San Diego and “NBC 7 San Diego” monikers are derived from those stations’ channel slots on the cable systems in that market. The “branding by cable channel” thing is also a trend in other markets, such as Palm Springs, CA,  and Ft. Myers, FL. I’d provide examples of stations from each market that engage in this practice, but I don’t want to turn this into the dreaded list thread.

Edited by Joey1986
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not a surprise, and very smart to move the allocation. WCWF is licensed to Suring but they moved to Scray's Hill once LIN took over digitally because the Krakow site they had in the analog age wasn't getting into the Winnebago cities, and if Weigel is going to launch a Green Bay station it has to be from Glenmore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2023 at 8:38 PM, abric said:

I have a question that's been bugging me lately. Can a tv station use their physical digital channel number in their branding rather than their virtual channel?

Didn't WOAY re-brand as TV50 for many years going with their digital channel, then the station went back to channel 4 even though they are on digital channel 30. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

New petition. Back to the Big Sky we go......

 

Sinclair now wants to vacate Montana's KECI off of RF 20 for RF 21.

 

To recap, KECI and KTVM wanted to get off of its VHF signals (13 and 6, respectively) to move to UHF channel 20.

 

Remembering asking this question at the time:

On 12/2/2020 at 1:53 PM, CircleSeven said:

I'm looking at the contours of both proposed changes of KECI & KTVM in Montana. Both are asking to change to RF 20. 

 

There's a portion where both signals will overlap.

 

Would it be difficult for viewers getting either one of these signals, if both are on the same frequency?

 

I guess they've answered my question in this engineering statement.

Quote

The local station engineering staffs have now realized the “real-world” interference consequences of both KECI-TV and KTVM-TV operating on channel 20 will result in a significant number of persons that are predicted to receive co-cannel {sic} interference causing a greater impact than was realized at the time the original interference studies were performed when preparing the rulemaking petitions for both stations. Exhibits show that for both stations pockets of interference are scattered over significant portions of each station’s populations.

 

The overlapping of the signals should've been realized from the jump. Areas near the Sapphire Range and Deerlodge National Forest would've been affected.

______________________________________________

EDIT: Three NCE NPRMs:

EDIT 8/23: Two NPRMs:

EDIT 8/29: One NPRM:

Edited by CircleSeven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Morgan Murphy makes its Marks in Michigan with a $13.375 million purchase of the Marks family's Michigan broadcasting operation. WBKB, WBKP, and WBUP are included along with radio stations in Houghton and Iron River.

 

The Marks family has been slowly divesting the properties the late Stephen owned, though this is the first TV M&A:

What's left? The famous KXGN and KYUS in Montana plus the Montana–North Dakota radio cluster with stations in Glendive, Sidney, Forsyth, Miles City, and Williston, and Belfield (near Dickinson).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Samantha said:

Morgan Murphy makes its Marks in Michigan with a $13.375 million purchase of the Marks family's Michigan broadcasting operation. WBKB, WBKP, and WBUP are included along with radio stations in Houghton and Iron River.

 

The Marks family has been slowly divesting the properties the late Stephen owned, though this is the first TV M&A:

What's left? The famous KXGN and KYUS in Montana plus the Montana–North Dakota radio cluster with stations in Glendive, Sidney, Forsyth, Miles City, and Williston, and Belfield (near Dickinson).

 

I would imagine Scripps is the obvious buyer of KXGN as they already own the rest of the MTN stations. They could also buy KYUS and just maintain the time brokerage deal with Cowles. Or Cowles could just buy the station itself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mre29 said:

 

I would imagine Scripps is the obvious buyer of KXGN as they already own the rest of the MTN stations. They could also buy KYUS and just maintain the time brokerage deal with Cowles. Or Cowles could just buy the station itself.

 

 

Counterpoint: KXGN is, logistically, a radio operation with a TV appendage. Morgan Murphy has radio properties—that's probably what drew them to the Michigan operation. But either the Montana/Dakota stations are being structured as a separate M&A from the Michigan ones or MMM didn't want them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • 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.