WISN Tower gets permission.

[Kevin Arnold]

Looks like WISN has won a round with a Common Council committee to extend their tower. Who would have thought......
Now they need full council approval.
 http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul02/62822.asp

[veyj]

That figures.  The only 'no' vote was from my alderman Jeff Pawlinski.  We're on the south side of Milwaukee.  What's he so concerned with a tower on the north east side that we can't even see?  Time for another phone call.

John Vey

[kjnorman]

While this is good news for the prospect of WI$N finally producing a digital signal I think it is a bad move for the city of Milwaukee.

We really should be reducing the number of towers and not increasing their height.  I can see the Towers from the upstairs windows of my house and I can not believe how many we have just to broadcast a few TV stations.

Seriously, they should all be consolidated onto one tower.  Many over communities have done this, and it is better for the consumer as we would only need to point our antenna to one spot.  The TV stations gain, as they get to benefit of shared tower maintenance costs with the other stations.

I have more thoughts on this subject on how this could work with a business plan and all, but I have posted them before, so I will stop my rant now  

So much for common sense.  Every station wants to build their own empire (or should that be tower...)

Kerry

[borghe]

The article points it right out.. WISN has been at odds with MATC and WDJT for years. No way are they going to share towers and pay leases.. It would make too much sense for everyone to band together like Madison..

[veyj]

Hey, I'm all for consolidating the towers but I can't see that happening in my lifetime.  The way I see it right now.  You've already got the 1100' eyesore.  What's 115 more feet going to hurt?  The real eyesore is going to be 1000's of houses putting up rooftop antenna's because the knuckle heads can't/won't transmit a decent signal.  I'd love to put mine in the attic but for obvious reasons can't at this time.

John

[Joseph S]

While I want Alias in HDTV bad, I still don't see how at this point they will even come close to the 9/1 deadline set.

They are continually operating without regard for public will and lie to our faces at every turn. As far as I'm concerned they lost out on me as a regular viewer forever the day CBS 58 started showing HDNET.

They had their conference call today and once again nothing is made of their supposed expenses forecast for the 1st quarter. The SEC should investigate them for securities fraud and the FCC for failure to meet the deadline.

 

Digital Television and Other Technological Innovation May Adversely Affect Our
Business-April/May 02

Of course, you don't have a digital signal and thus no viewers or sponsors either.

 

HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS--(Continued)(Unaudited)  March 31, 2002 million approximately (i) $20.2 million in digital projects,
For the year ended December 31, 2001, capital expenditures including (ii)
$18.6 million in digital projects

Lawyer's fees, computers for the entire office, Cars with "On-Star system," Home security systems, special digital tracking services on Rolex watches for theft recovery...  

[kjnorman]

 

Originally posted by veyj:
The real eyesore is going to be 1000's of houses putting up rooftop antenna's because the knuckle heads can't/won't transmit a decent signal.

Its funny as coming from a country (Britain) that barely has cable, I'm used to every house having a roof top antenna and often a satelite dish as well, so I do not even think of it.  Then again when I think about it, our "arials" (we don't tend to call then antennas) are a lot smaller than some of the monstronsities I see around here, so they are slightly less intrusive and when everyone has one, well... one tends to ignore them.

I know we are unlikely to ever see a single tower here in Milwaukee, but it was the goal of Norquist.  As JS states  

The city's tower policy is aimed at encouraging stations to, over time, consolidate on a smaller number of towers, something other communities have accomplished

Kerry

[This message has been edited by kjnorman (edited 07-31-2002).]

[veyj]

Maybe Knockwurst could have made further strides in consolidating the towers if he wasn't so caught up in his own tower.  

[uplinkguy]

One decent excuse for stations not consolidating is rent money.

The owners of the towers make a lot of money renting vertical space on their sticks.  Everybody from radio stations, utility companies, pager services and the government are kicking money into the tv stations.

Rules of real estate work here as well.  You make money as a landlord and don't get much of anything as a renter.  (other than ease of mind.)

[kjnorman]

Ah, I understand that there is a lot of money to be made from renting space on the tower, and this is where I came up with my idea.

First of all, all the station owners cooperate and come up with a provisional agreement that would be along the lines of: they would dismantle current towers and would move all their transmitters to one super high tower (perhaps 1500 to 2000 feet high) – it the city approved.  I would think that the city would consider one very high tower more favorable than the many 1000+ ft towers that currently exist.

Under agreement of the city, the stations and/or tower owners form a wholly own company "Milwaukee Telecommunications, Inc"  off which each station will have a stake/share holding.  The precise shareholding would need to be negotiated, but could be based on the status of existing towers, income from towers and a multitude of other factors.

Milwaukee Telecommunications, Inc (MTI) would be fully responsible for construction, maintenance, insurance etc on the tower.  The station's transmitters would then be leased to MTI, with leasing costs based upon the preferred placement locations (i.e. the higher up, the more the lease), however placement preference would also first be given to the largest share holders in MTI.  The rates for the lease for the main TV transmitters should be derived so as to run MTI as a non profit company with all the leasing costs being enough to cover maintenance, liability insurance etc.  So the stations benefit from shared costs with other stations.  If calculated correctly, the annual lease cost to the station should be below that of maintaining and running their existing towers, and so it is this reduction is annual operating expense that should get them excited about the prospect of a jointly owner share in a single Milwaukee transmitter tower.

A board of directors would be composed of representatives of all the stations that have stock holding in the tower.  This board would be responsible for setting the leasing rates that are agreeable amongst the stock holders in the company.  Leasing rates would also be set for non MTI stock holder companies to lease space on the tower; i.e. utilities, phone companies and so on.  This leasing rates would not be under the same 'non-profit' rules that exist for the MTI shareholders.  Income from all other non-MTI own broadcasters would be use for dividend payments at year end – so the original stations that invested and agreed to consolidate would also get yearly income, as well as lesser maintenance/ownership costs of owning a tower.  

Finally, for towers that have been decommissioned, the land could be sold off for commercial or residential redevelopment.  This could provide a short term income source to the current owners – money that could be used to set up the initial tower corporation (MTI), or to repay city guaranteed loans during the construction phase of the new tower.

So there are 4 strong business rules at play here:
1) The joint MTI companies benefit from reduced annual operating expenses due to the distribution of expense between the MTI companies.
2) The MTI companies benefit from a secondary income stream for rental of transmission space to non-MTI companies.
3) A single higher tower may eliminate issues of tower shadowing, and the extra height (500 to 1000) higher, should give the opportunity to run reduced wattage for the same coverage area, yielding the companies more in the way of energy bill usage.
4) Income from sale/redevelopment of land currently occupied by now redundant towers.

I'm sure there are some holes with this business plan (after all I came up with it in 10 minutes while here at work), but perhaps if I work the holes out.....  I could take it to Norquist, get his approval and force it on the city!  Just call me Mr TV from now  

[MesaV]

Dear Mr. TV:
Wakeup, you're dreaming again!
 

[kjnorman]

Well it I am dreaming, I am going to have a very nice dream....

Along with me in control and designing the tower, I think it should become a Milwaukee landmark.  

I think it should be on the lake front next to the summerfest grounds.  That spit of land that sticks out into the Michigan would work well.  It could become a public attaction and we could put a resturant at the top of it - one that revolves.

How better to define Milwaukee?  Admittedly its not the Sydney Habour Bridge, but we could tart up the Hoan bridge, build the worlds tallest free standing tower (lets for go 1500 feet) next to the Summerfest grounds out in the lake, and the have the Milwaukee Downtown backdrop complete with the Calatrava Museum.

What might it look like?  How about this?.

Milwaukee will become a cool city to live in.  It will be voted one of the top 10 places to live in in the US, and people will start moving here.  We will get lots on new and cool looking buildings for all these new people (with strict building controls), and there will be a shortage of housing space so all our property values will go up    , but as there are more people our taxes will go down        

Oh no!  I think it is turning to a nightmare...  All these people mean more traffic so more cars and more polution and more jams    , and then people will start thinking we are Chicago and then we will not be able to afford our houses         and the city won't lower our taxes, they'll just charge us more as our houses cost more, arrggghhhhh!  BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!

Oh!  What day is it?  My alarm clock just when off...


[This message has been edited by kjnorman (edited 08-01-2002).]

[tschinner]

Maybe some hope for channel 12.  See the attached article.
 http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug02/63244.asp

[uplinkguy]

Frank Lloyd Wright had designed a broadcast tower for Chicago's lakefront in 1956.  It was designed to be one mile high.  Kind of looks like a stalagmite. (Sorry, I couldn't find a good link of it on the web.)

Now that would be a welcome addition near Summerfest.  Even I could watch Milwaukee tv 75 miles away.

It would probably leak though.