FCC filing info/extension data

[Kevin Arnold]

Don't forget the H-Pix and Hauppage computer card add-ons that can put you into HD for about $350.

[borghe]

 

Originally posted by techboywi:
If I cared, I would, but I don't, so I wont.    Analog will do me just fine till I can get the fundage to sink in a DTV of my very own..

Sorry for seeming annoyed, but if you don't care about any of this why are you posting on these boards?

[techguy1975]

[/b][/QUOTE]
Sorry for seeming annoyed, but if you don't care about any of this why are you posting on these boards?[/B][/QUOTE]


I'm interested in the technology, yes.  But, since I do not have the equipment, nor can I afford it till it comes down alot more, it does not directly affect me.    If I had the equipment now, yeah, I would probably be upset.  I am merely offering another point of view, than those who want to bash all the local stations because not everyone is up to par yet.

I do find it rather funny though that the community suppored WVCY, while filing an extention, said they would most likely be on the air by Nov. 1st, it would truly be sad if they beat chs 18&24

[Joseph S]

It looks like I'll have to call Mon, because they left Sinclair corp early today. David B. Amy is the person listed on the extension so ask to speak with him. The FCC closed up at 5:30EST, 5 minutes before I called. There is a complete FCC phonebook available for download via the Contact portion of the website.

Points of interest:
1)WVCY- In the Feb 2002 request for an extension, they stated
"In January 2001, American Tower approached VCY with an offer to lease space on one of its towers, an offer that is too good for VCY to pass up. At the currently proposed site, VCY would have to conduct expensive structural study prior to commencing construction. Moreover, the WVCY-DT facility at this loaction would require the use of a significant length of transmission line, affecting the signal quality. These problems would be eliminated at the American Tower location. VCY has confirmed that the tower can support the additional weight of the WVCY-DT antenna, and the positioning of the antenna will require less transmission line. Relocating to the American Tower structure, therefore, is doubly beneficial..."

So here we have stated that they have done the research and have lined up a separate location site. Yet, In August they are now crying poor while at the same time saying they can meet Nov deadline but "we need an extension just in  case."

Based on recent cases, non-profit or not this extension gets turned down because they have a site, claim transmitter by 8/31/02 and power installation.

Now the fun stuff:

2)WCGV/WVTV: Sinclair Procrastinating

For some reason, neither of their stations have the referenced exhibits included in the database. We can see that they have received an extension and have filed for another. They already had a Construction Permit granted, unlike WI$N. They also have provided us with a new document for reasoning. Yet, that evidence shows nothing more than studies need to be done. (that the non-profit had no probs accomplishing by May)

They also claim that all of the equipment has been purchased and the work will be completed, but NOT AT A FULL POWER SITE. It also seems to indicate that they have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to establish a FULL POWER SITE and are merely telling the FCC they don't have one, aren't in the process of building one, and aren't about to lease space at all. In there construction permit filling they clearly detailed what construction would be done and I find no explanation as to why it has not been done or why any additional studies would be required.

Recent SEC filings indicate that future expenses include fines for the Digital deadline. This indicates to me that they are willing to violate the FCC instructions and are intentionally leaving the FCC no choice but to revoke the license or allow the low power transmission.

This is something we need to tell the FCC we want them to take a hard stance on. Sinclair is willfully working to violate the mandate and should either comply immediately or lose their license. They have had more than enough time. The above mentioned non-profit, VCY, has found the expenses and time to conduct testing and secure a full power site. There is no excuse for what Sinclair is doing and if they do not want to serve the Milwaukee then the FCC should revoke the license so that someone else can have a chance.

I have downloaded the FCC phonebook from the website and am planning to call both the Consumer Affairs Dept. and Chairman Powell's office.

Is there a "best" address where a letter should be mailed to the FCC? I will send my letter via email to the fcc, email to sinclair, postal to Sinclair corp, Sinclair WCGV and Sinclair WVTV, and the FCC.

 

Um...You do realize that would only make things worse...Then they'd be filing another extention, making you people complain even more.....

I don't think it could be worse. There is no digital signal. At best it forces them to construct a new tower and be required by the FCC to construct it with capacity for full power DT. At worst, it sets them back financially and they are off the air and have to do actual labor. Seeing as I don't have their analog stations on my tv tuner anymore, I see this as a no lose situation.  

[Gregg Lengling]

For some reason Sinclair thinks they can get the rules changed.  Sinclair has been touting COFDM over ATSC even though the FCC has state time and again that they will not change the OTA parameters from ATSC to COFDM (even if they did who would have equipment to watch it, all the current Sets and STB's are NTSC and ATSC only, there aren't any in the US that do COFDM).  So I think not only is Sinclair flaunting everything I think the FCC is getting ready to play hard-ball with them.   The fines come first than they'll just start pulling DTV licenses.  Let's see how Sinclair likes that, everyone gets a free DTV license but Sinclair owned stations.
I say the FCC should stick it to em.


------------------
Gregg R. Lengling
RCA P61310 61" 16x9
glengling@ameritech.net

[borghe]

One minor correction. Sinclair is fighting for COFDM over 8VSB, not ATSC.  

I will also be writing an additional email to the FCC including some of the information that Joe has seen fit to provide.

I agree. Sinclair is choosing to play hardball, and it seems to me that this isn't only the corporate stance, but also 18 and 24's stance judging by the lack of response. It would be one thing if Sinclair was not providing funding and making it difficult for 18 and 24 to get on the air, but is an entirely other thing if they are actively choosing to tow the company line.

[This message has been edited by borghe (edited 09-07-2002).]

[Matt Heebner]

AGREED! Sinclair is basically thumbing it's nose at the FCC here and all around the country. I wish the FCC would crack the whip and get them where it would hurt the most...the pocketbook. A couple big fines, and a revoked license or two and you better bet they will take notice.

Matt

[Kevin Arnold]

A revoked liscense or two would really do the trick. Arrogant as they are, the result of revoking would be to cause the value of their corresponding analog station to plummet. After all, who wants to buy equipment and a liscense that will expire in 6 to 15 years and be worth nothing. This of course would have a significan negative impact on Sinclair stock causing them no end of problems. Sor far their intransigence has cost them nothing but when the $$$ start flying out the window I suspect the board of directors may decide to change some of the corporate leadership.

[ReesR]

Boy, I get out of the house for one day and this topic goes into orbit.  Great comments.  And yes, I will take the plunge too and write the commission with the email address provided earlier in this topic.

Yes, I agree.  The stalling has got to stop.  I am happy that the Commission finally is putting some teeth into it.

Remember in my first post on this topic where I didn't know why WISN was "dismissed"?  I now have a theory which is coupled to the announcement that they will be going digital in October.  The theory is because the commission refused to entertain another extension, the handwriting was on the wall and they would have to react, be fined or worse.  My thinking is they decided to just go ahead with plan B.  The nice thing about it is WISN will not be playing the part time or low power game.

Ok, I have to go write a letter.



------------------
Rees Roberts
Racine, WI
reesr@wi.net

HDTV Receiver:  Sony KD-34XBR2
Bi-directional Yagi Antenna at 30 feet

[ReesR]

Before sending my two emails to the FCC I looked at their website and discovered these:

Complaints:  fccinfo@fcc.gov

Commissioners:
'mpowell@fcc.gov'; 'kabernat@fcc.gov'; 'mcopps@fcc.gov'; 'kjmweb@fcc.gov'

Therefore I sent them to all four.

In the 2 next posts are the emails I sent.

[ReesR]

(Concerning WVTV)

Honorable Commissioners,

I am writing today to express my opinion of total dissatisfaction regarding the request for yet another special temporary authority (STA) extension for WVTV-DT from the licensee of WVTV of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This, despite the fact they already received an extension from the original May 1, 2002 roll out date.

As a new subscriber to high definition technology and as a viewer in their analog Zone A coverage area, I was looking forward to seeing more diversified high definition programming from my investment. They state in their exhibits to the FCC, which were included with the STA extension application, they foresaw no problems with meeting their existing Nov. 1 deadline, however they only began the process of tower work at the end of September 2002 per their own data.  They now say "despite its best efforts, WVTV is unable to meet its November 1, 2002 construction deadline." In addition, their STA provided to them on April 23, 2002 gave low power authority.  To continue the extension of low power authority beyond November 1, 2002 does not provide for the best interest of the public.

In the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area this high-definition viewer has observed the following trends AFTER my purchase of a digital receiver (current as of 9/7/2002):

1) Two digital stations on low power are not receivable even with roof mounted antennas.
2) One digital station is on the air regularly only part time.
3) One digital station is normally not transmitting high definition but rather is multi-casting.  It is interesting to note that my new digital receiver says "HDTV" on the unit's front not "Multicasting" TV.
4) Three or more stations are not on the air in digital format yet including this applicant.

The applicant should be made aware that low power does not provide anywhere close to Grade A coverage and provides a fraud to the public.  Stations running low power on digital do not provide notice of this information on their analog counterpart.   Had I known that years after the Commission gave free spectrum to the broadcast community that I would be deceived by the trend I defined above, I would not have made the sizeable investment I did in a high definition digital television.

I feel WVTV LICENSEE, INC. has shown a complete lack of respect for both the transition schedule your commission has laid out, as well as their viewing public. By approving their application you would be allowing them to further delay their transition to digital for yet another 6 months.  Also, given their previous disregard, it might be reasonable to assume they would submit yet another extension request NEXT year attempting to delay this transition even further. Their indirect subsidiary parent company, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc., has on numerous times made public their unhappiness with the FCC concerning this digital television rollout. Everything from timetables to standards has been discussed, which I believe is just another weapon they are using in that vain to delay proper implementation.

It also has become quite clear to this individual that the use of low-power is being implemented across the country as yet another tactic to delay the proper implementation of high definition television.  Granting WVTV LICENSEE, INC. application for CP extension would do nothing for this viewer even if they were to execute their low power option.  Two other stations in the Milwaukee area have proven that I simply would not either receive them or receive them reliably.  Grade A coverage is what is needed just like their analog counterpart.

I therefore request that you dismiss WVTV LICENSEE, INC. application for CP extension. They have known about this deadline for many years followed by a 6 month extension.  Others certainly would be available to serve the public interest without such delays and tactics.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter.


Sincerely,

[ReesR]

(concerning WCGV)

Honorable Commissioners,

I am writing today to express my opinion of total dissatisfaction regarding the request for yet another special temporary authority (STA) extension for WCGV-DT from the licensee of WCGV of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This, despite the fact they already received an extension from the original May 1, 2002 roll out date.

As a new subscriber to high definition technology and as a viewer in their analog Zone A coverage area, I was looking forward to seeing more diversified high definition programming from my investment. They state in their exhibits to the FCC, which were included with the STA extension application, "WCGV-DT anticipates being able to commence operation pursuant to an STA by the November 1 2002 deadline", however they now say using the FCC's own schedule as an excuse, "SBG (Sinclair Broadcast Group and parent company to the licensee) has made plans to construct low power digital facilities where necessary in order to comply with the expedited schedule which the May 24 order imposes."  In my opinion, the continuation of the extension of low power authority beyond November 1, 2002 does not provide for the best interest of the public.  SBG and the licensee has certainly had enough time to implement the proper execution of digital facilities with high power.

In the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area this high-definition digital viewer has observed the following trends AFTER my purchase of a digital receiver (current as of 9/7/2002):

1) Two digital stations on low power are not receivable even with roof mounted antennas.
2) One digital station is on the air regularly but only part time.
3) One digital station is normally not transmitting high definition but rather is multi-casting.  It is interesting to note that my new digital receiver says "HDTV" on the unit's front not "multicasting" TV.
4) Three or more stations are not on the air in digital format yet including this applicant.

The applicant should be made aware that low power does not provide anywhere close to Grade A coverage and provides a fraud to the public.  Stations running low power on digital do not provide notice of this information on their analog counterpart.  Had I known that years after the Commission gave free spectrum to the broadcast community that I would be deceived by the trend I defined above, I would not have made the sizeable investment I did in a high definition digital television.

I feel WCGV LICENSEE, INC. has shown a complete lack of respect for both the transition schedule your commission has laid out, as well as their viewing public. By approving their application you would be allowing them to further delay their transition to digital for yet another 6 months.  Also, given their previous disregard, it might be reasonable to assume they would submit yet another extension request NEXT year attempting to delay this transition even further. Their indirect subsidiary parent company, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc., has on numerous times made public their unhappiness with the FCC concerning this digital television rollout. Everything from timetables to standards has been discussed, which I believe is just another weapon they are using in that vain to delay proper implementation.

It also has become quite clear to this individual that the use of low-power is being implemented across the country as yet another tactic to delay the proper implementation of high definition television.  Granting WCGV LICENSEE, INC. application for CP extension would do nothing for this viewer even if they were to execute their low power option.  Two other stations in the Milwaukee area have proven that I simply would not either receive them or receive them reliably.  Grade A coverage is what is needed just like their analog counterpart.

I therefore request that you dismiss WCGV LICENSEE, INC. application for CP extension. They have known about this deadline for many years followed by a 6 month extension.  Others certainly would be available to serve the public interest without such delays and tactics.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter.


Sincerely,

[borghe]

eepp.. Just to correct you, it's a CP Extension that they're asking for, not a STA. If they actually had a STA (like WISN) it would be better becuase it would mean they would be broadcasting relatively soon. The CP Extension is what will allow them to delay tower construction and broadcast until 2003.

[ReesR]

dang.  Oh well.  I guess it just makes me a mortal in my delivery then.  I hope they understand.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[borghe]

Further note of interest is that there are currently 244 DT stations who have requested CP extensions. It may be a couple of weeks before 18 and 24's are decided on.