From ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu Tue Nov 1 00:17:29 2016 From: ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu (Sean Smyth) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 00:17:29 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info Message-ID: This was just posted on BostonGlobe.com: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/10/31/where-you-can-find-new-nbc-boston-your-remote/zRfa8wxVs5e9va8OMK7gQL/story.html From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Nov 1 09:55:20 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:55:20 -0400 Subject: Brian Dogde slapped by FCC, finally Message-ID: <22552.40648.761382.960297@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Scott reported on Monday about an FCC consent decree released last Thursday between the Media Bureau, Brian A. Dodge, and parties associated with Dodge. Apparently the FCC first started having doubts about Dodge's operations back in the late 1980s, when his "Harvest Broadcasting" was involved in an applicaton for a new FM in Poughkeepsie. Questions were raised then about Harvest's qualifications as a licensee, but the matter was left unresolved after being designated for a hearing, because Harvest's application was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dodge continued to apply for numerous other authorizations, using a variety of aliases and front groups, some of the alleged directors of which were actually dead at the time. The FCC put a "red light hold" on his application for a license to cover at WWNH (1340 Madbury), but some other applications, including numerous translators and two LPFMs, slipped through by creative use of pseudonyms. Rather than give Dodge the metaphorical "death penalty", which it would be fully entitled to do, but which would require substantial resources to gather evidence and hold hearings before an administrative law judge, the FCC in the consent decree agrees to let Dodge keep WWNH and a number of his translators. Two of his granted LPFM permits are cancelled, as well as the license to WCKL (560 Catskill), and he must admit wrongdoing and pay a $100,000 fine out of the sale proceeds of two of his translators. The remaining translator licenses are modified to show Dodge as the licensee and given short-term renewals. Last time I was in Madbury I went looking for the WWNH CP site and couldn't find it. Scott and I saw it back in 1995 on one of our earliest trips, when it was still on the air. Dodge still has some work to do, to convince the FCC that the facilities (if they even still exist) actually match the original CP, since that's the facility that the application for a license to cover would authorize. -GAWollman From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Tue Nov 1 10:22:15 2016 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:22:15 -0400 Subject: Brian Dogde slapped by FCC, finally In-Reply-To: <22552.40648.761382.960297@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <22552.40648.761382.960297@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: The WWNH site is easy to find if you know what to look for, but still hard, if that makes sense. It's on Knox Marsh Road, Route 155 just as you get into Madury from Dover. It's so close to dover, that you could use 284 Knox Marsh Road, Madury or 284 Knox Marsh Road Dover as an address. There was a sign at the end of the road that leads up to WWNH. Theres a landscaping company of some kind next to the radio station and to the right of their property is a dirt road that elads up a few hundred feet to a driveway you turn right into and that clearing back on the woods is WWNH. You will never see the 1340 tower from the road Dodge is a douchecanoe, an asshat.. he's unfit to own gas stations let alone radio stations. I worked for him for a few months and the stuff he told me, the stuff he believed to be ok/legal with regards to radio stations was beyond incredulous. The only other person who really knew Dodge even better then me, Ernie Rice, is dead. Paul On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > Scott reported on Monday about an FCC consent decree released last > Thursday between the Media Bureau, Brian A. Dodge, and parties > associated with Dodge. > > Apparently the FCC first started having doubts about Dodge's > operations back in the late 1980s, when his "Harvest Broadcasting" was > involved in an applicaton for a new FM in Poughkeepsie. Questions > were raised then about Harvest's qualifications as a licensee, but the > matter was left unresolved after being designated for a hearing, > because Harvest's application was dismissed for failure to prosecute. > > Dodge continued to apply for numerous other authorizations, using a > variety of aliases and front groups, some of the alleged directors of > which were actually dead at the time. The FCC put a "red light hold" > on his application for a license to cover at WWNH (1340 Madbury), but > some other applications, including numerous translators and two LPFMs, > slipped through by creative use of pseudonyms. > > Rather than give Dodge the metaphorical "death penalty", which it > would be fully entitled to do, but which would require substantial > resources to gather evidence and hold hearings before an > administrative law judge, the FCC in the consent decree agrees to let > Dodge keep WWNH and a number of his translators. Two of his granted > LPFM permits are cancelled, as well as the license to WCKL (560 > Catskill), and he must admit wrongdoing and pay a $100,000 fine out of > the sale proceeds of two of his translators. The remaining translator > licenses are modified to show Dodge as the licensee and given > short-term renewals. > > Last time I was in Madbury I went looking for the WWNH CP site and > couldn't find it. Scott and I saw it back in 1995 on one of our > earliest trips, when it was still on the air. Dodge still has some > work to do, to convince the FCC that the facilities (if they even > still exist) actually match the original CP, since that's the facility > that the application for a license to cover would authorize. > > -GAWollman > > From aerie.ma@comcast.net Tue Nov 1 11:11:03 2016 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:11:03 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> Is WBTS moving to RF Channel 8? Virtual channel 8? Or is Comcast just carrying them on Comcast Channel 8? The Wikipedia entry for WBTS says that they " will move to a stronger signal on channel 8". And of course, Wikipedia never makes an error ;-) -----Original Message----- From: Boston-Radio-Interest [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Sean Smyth Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:17 AM To: Boston Radio Group Subject: NBC Boston info This was just posted on BostonGlobe.com: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/10/31/where-you-can-find-new-nbc-boston-your-remote/zRfa8wxVs5e9va8OMK7gQL/story.html From raccoonradio@gmail.com Tue Nov 1 07:00:42 2016 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:00:42 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston details Message-ID: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/10/31/where-you-can-find-new-nbc-boston-your-remote/zRfa8wxVs5e9va8OMK7gQL/story.html?event=event25 It will be on Ch 8 over the air and Ch 10 for many on cable and satellite.I was surprised to read that instead of about 80, supposedly some 97 per cent of area viewers have cable or satellite.NBCBoston website and newscasts will begin on Nov 10 on the so called countdown channel, but NBC programs will continue till year's end on WHDH 7 From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Tue Nov 1 12:40:51 2016 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:40:51 -0400 Subject: Brian Dogde slapped by FCC, finally In-Reply-To: References: <22552.40648.761382.960297@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: It may have been taken down when the license was deleted.. it was "OK" in terms of overgrown/not overgrown when i was there.. although you coudl walk right up to the AM tower, if i recall correctly.. i honestly dont rememebr a fence being there. Paul On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Rob Landry <011010001@interpring.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: > > The WWNH site is easy to find if you know what to look for, but still hard, >> if that makes sense. It's on Knox Marsh Road, Route 155 just as you get >> into Madury from Dover. It's so close to dover, that you could use 284 >> Knox >> Marsh Road, Madury or 284 Knox Marsh Road Dover as an address. >> > > I thought the WWNH site was dismantled a couple years ago. I visited it a > couple years before that, when a client of mine was considering buying the > station. It looked like it had been abandoned for years, and the tower site > was so overgrown it could be approached only with great difficulty. > > > Rob > > > From 011010001@interpring.com Tue Nov 1 12:39:30 2016 From: 011010001@interpring.com (Rob Landry) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Brian Dogde slapped by FCC, finally In-Reply-To: References: <22552.40648.761382.960297@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: > The WWNH site is easy to find if you know what to look for, but still hard, > if that makes sense. It's on Knox Marsh Road, Route 155 just as you get > into Madury from Dover. It's so close to dover, that you could use 284 Knox > Marsh Road, Madury or 284 Knox Marsh Road Dover as an address. I thought the WWNH site was dismantled a couple years ago. I visited it a couple years before that, when a client of mine was considering buying the station. It looked like it had been abandoned for years, and the tower site was so overgrown it could be approached only with great difficulty. Rob From scott@fybush.com Tue Nov 1 11:44:14 2016 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:44:14 -0400 Subject: Brian Dogde slapped by FCC, finally In-Reply-To: References: <22552.40648.761382.960297@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <7b90dc76-4407-60f4-81b5-7c3fbc1ad343@fybush.com> I'm told the Knox Marsh Road site is gone - foreclosure sale, followed by the removal of the tower, which went to Jim Bleikamp in Maine and is now being used by his WCME 900. I hope he performed an exorcism on it when he put it back up! s On 11/1/2016 10:22 AM, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: > The WWNH site is easy to find if you know what to look for, but still hard, > if that makes sense. It's on Knox Marsh Road, Route 155 just as you get > into Madury from Dover. It's so close to dover, that you could use 284 Knox > Marsh Road, Madury or 284 Knox Marsh Road Dover as an address. > > There was a sign at the end of the road that leads up to WWNH. Theres a > landscaping company of some kind next to the radio station and to the right > of their property is a dirt road that elads up a few hundred feet to a > driveway you turn right into and that clearing back on the woods is WWNH. > You will never see the 1340 tower from the road > > Dodge is a douchecanoe, an asshat.. he's unfit to own gas stations let > alone radio stations. > > I worked for him for a few months and the stuff he told me, the stuff he > believed to be ok/legal with regards to radio stations was beyond > incredulous. > > The only other person who really knew Dodge even better then me, Ernie > Rice, is dead. > > Paul > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Garrett Wollman > wrote: > >> Scott reported on Monday about an FCC consent decree released last >> Thursday between the Media Bureau, Brian A. Dodge, and parties >> associated with Dodge. >> >> Apparently the FCC first started having doubts about Dodge's >> operations back in the late 1980s, when his "Harvest Broadcasting" was >> involved in an applicaton for a new FM in Poughkeepsie. Questions >> were raised then about Harvest's qualifications as a licensee, but the >> matter was left unresolved after being designated for a hearing, >> because Harvest's application was dismissed for failure to prosecute. >> >> Dodge continued to apply for numerous other authorizations, using a >> variety of aliases and front groups, some of the alleged directors of >> which were actually dead at the time. The FCC put a "red light hold" >> on his application for a license to cover at WWNH (1340 Madbury), but >> some other applications, including numerous translators and two LPFMs, >> slipped through by creative use of pseudonyms. >> >> Rather than give Dodge the metaphorical "death penalty", which it >> would be fully entitled to do, but which would require substantial >> resources to gather evidence and hold hearings before an >> administrative law judge, the FCC in the consent decree agrees to let >> Dodge keep WWNH and a number of his translators. Two of his granted >> LPFM permits are cancelled, as well as the license to WCKL (560 >> Catskill), and he must admit wrongdoing and pay a $100,000 fine out of >> the sale proceeds of two of his translators. The remaining translator >> licenses are modified to show Dodge as the licensee and given >> short-term renewals. >> >> Last time I was in Madbury I went looking for the WWNH CP site and >> couldn't find it. Scott and I saw it back in 1995 on one of our >> earliest trips, when it was still on the air. Dodge still has some >> work to do, to convince the FCC that the facilities (if they even >> still exist) actually match the original CP, since that's the facility >> that the application for a license to cover would authorize. >> >> -GAWollman >> >> From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Nov 1 13:10:31 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:10:31 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> Message-ID: FCC is letting them use virtual channel 8 but the signal will be suspect. https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/map-display#appid=208177&call=WBTS-LD&contour=74&city=BOSTON&state=MA&fileno=BLTTL-19950414IE&.map On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jim Hall wrote: > Is WBTS moving to RF Channel 8? Virtual channel 8? Or is Comcast just > carrying them on Comcast Channel 8? The Wikipedia entry for WBTS says that > they " will move to a stronger signal on channel 8". And of course, > Wikipedia never makes an error ;-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boston-Radio-Interest [mailto:boston-radio-interest- > bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Sean Smyth > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 12:17 AM > To: Boston Radio Group > Subject: NBC Boston info > > This was just posted on BostonGlobe.com: > > http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/10/31/where-you- > can-find-new-nbc-boston-your-remote/zRfa8wxVs5e9va8OMK7gQL/story.html > > > From ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu Tue Nov 1 16:13:52 2016 From: ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu (Sean Smyth) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:13:52 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Tuesday, November 1, 2016, Kevin Vahey wrote: > FCC is letting them use virtual channel 8 but the signal will be suspect. > > https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/map-display#appid= > 208177&call=WBTS-LD&contour=74&city=BOSTON&state=MA& > fileno=BLTTL-19950414IE&.map > That's putting it kindly. When Randolph and Woburn are at the fringe of your coverage area ... -- Sent from my iPhone From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Nov 1 21:27:24 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:27:24 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > FCC is letting them use virtual channel 8 but the signal will be suspect. Presumably because they are RF channel 46 and virtual channel 46 broadcasts on RF 10, but virtual channel 10 is in use in Providence. -GAWollman From scott@fybush.com Tue Nov 1 21:30:42 2016 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:30:42 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 11/1/2016 9:27 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > >> FCC is letting them use virtual channel 8 but the signal will be suspect. > > Presumably because they are RF channel 46 and virtual channel 46 > broadcasts on RF 10, but virtual channel 10 is in use in Providence. > > -GAWollman > There are rules for that, and my read of those rules is that: (a) Because WTMU/WBTS was on analog 32, it should be virtual 32 but (b) if they insist on being 46, which they can't use, then they should be 10, which they can't use, and therefore the next step in the daisy chain would be either virtual 51 (WJAR's former RF channel) or 50 (its current RF channel). They can't be 50 because of WBIN, but they *could* be 51. I'm curious to know how they got 8 instead, and I'm waiting to hear back from someone who should know... s From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Nov 1 21:36:13 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:36:13 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > There are rules for that, and my read of those rules is that: > (a) Because WTMU/WBTS was on analog 32, it should be virtual 32 Except that they haven't been on analog 32 in a long time: they were on analog 46, under STA, before flash-cutting to digital when NBC offered to pay for it. My read of the filings is that they never intended to build this digital facility, and were just waiting for the auction proceeds. -GAWollman From scott@fybush.com Tue Nov 1 21:47:53 2016 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:47:53 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> On 11/1/2016 9:36 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > >> There are rules for that, and my read of those rules is that: > >> (a) Because WTMU/WBTS was on analog 32, it should be virtual 32 > > Except that they haven't been on analog 32 in a long time: they were > on analog 46, under STA, before flash-cutting to digital when NBC > offered to pay for it. My read of the filings is that they never > intended to build this digital facility, and were just waiting for the > auction proceeds. I don't see a loophole in the rules for "they haven't been on analog xx for a long time" or for "they used this channel under STA"; the procedure under the A/51 standard, as incorporated into FCC rules, simply looks at "what was the analog channel assignment pre-transition?" And the fact remains that "32" is an available major channel number in both the Boston DMA and all adjoining DMAs, so it really was the logical place for WTMU/WBTS to go, at least until Comcast's lawyers got involved. (I do not understand AT ALL why Comcast didn't then shuffle its lineups so that NBC Boston would be 8 both OTA and on cable. That puzzles me. The local access channels could easily have shifted from 8 to 10 without any regulatory problems, at least AIUI.) From kvahey@gmail.com Wed Nov 2 00:13:11 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:13:11 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> Message-ID: I think Comcast is only concerned about putting NBC Boston in the 10 slot on the HD tier. The SD channels are just a nuisance to them now. What I can't figure out is how WBTS is now wagging the dog. Should't they simply mirror what WNEU is doing and not the other way around? The who thing is borderline absorb as WBTS gives no coverage to the south shore and MetroWest is marginal at best. On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > On 11/1/2016 9:36 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > >> < >> said: >> >> There are rules for that, and my read of those rules is that: >>> >> >> (a) Because WTMU/WBTS was on analog 32, it should be virtual 32 >>> >> >> Except that they haven't been on analog 32 in a long time: they were >> on analog 46, under STA, before flash-cutting to digital when NBC >> offered to pay for it. My read of the filings is that they never >> intended to build this digital facility, and were just waiting for the >> auction proceeds. >> > > I don't see a loophole in the rules for "they haven't been on analog xx > for a long time" or for "they used this channel under STA"; the procedure > under the A/51 standard, as incorporated into FCC rules, simply looks at > "what was the analog channel assignment pre-transition?" > > And the fact remains that "32" is an available major channel number in > both the Boston DMA and all adjoining DMAs, so it really was the logical > place for WTMU/WBTS to go, at least until Comcast's lawyers got involved. > > (I do not understand AT ALL why Comcast didn't then shuffle its lineups so > that NBC Boston would be 8 both OTA and on cable. That puzzles me. The > local access channels could easily have shifted from 8 to 10 without any > regulatory problems, at least AIUI.) > > > > From wollman@bimajority.org Wed Nov 2 00:26:34 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:26:34 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> Message-ID: <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I think Comcast is only concerned about putting NBC Boston in the 10 slot > on the HD tier. The SD channels are just a nuisance to them now. > What I can't figure out is how WBTS is now wagging the dog. Should't they > simply mirror what WNEU is doing and not the other way around? > The who thing is borderline absorb as WBTS gives no coverage to the south > shore and MetroWest is marginal at best. Why would Comcast, of all companies, be concerned about OTA viewership in areas where they already have near universal cable penetration? Cord-cutters live in the city, not Plymouth or Milford. -GAWollman From wollman@bimajority.org Wed Nov 2 00:32:05 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:32:05 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <22553.27717.310514.27699@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < Why would Comcast, of all companies, be concerned about OTA viewership > in areas where they already have near universal cable penetration? > Cord-cutters live in the city, not Plymouth or Milford. I should point out that there's every reason to expect that a full-power Boston license will be available for quite a bit less than Ansin has been asking, after the repack. -GAWollman From kvahey@gmail.com Wed Nov 2 00:43:36 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:43:36 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Exactly. NBC has most of the cable operators on board, Charter in Worcester is the only one to be balking as they carry WJAR anyways. Will be curious to see how the CRTC deals with this as WHDH is the primary NBC station on cable in Atlantic Canada. Does anybody here think that Ansin might have put 7 into the auction as well along with 56? On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > > > I think Comcast is only concerned about putting NBC Boston in the 10 slot > > on the HD tier. The SD channels are just a nuisance to them now. > > > What I can't figure out is how WBTS is now wagging the dog. Should't they > > simply mirror what WNEU is doing and not the other way around? > > > The who thing is borderline absorb as WBTS gives no coverage to the south > > shore and MetroWest is marginal at best. > > Why would Comcast, of all companies, be concerned about OTA viewership > in areas where they already have near universal cable penetration? > Cord-cutters live in the city, not Plymouth or Milford. > > -GAWollman > > From kvahey@gmail.com Wed Nov 2 02:45:05 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:45:05 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Under the letter of the law is WBTS-LD even legal? In theory all WBTS-LD is supposed to do is relay WNEU. but the way it has been announced WBTS-LD will be the primary signal and WNEU will carry NBC Boston on 60.2 which will show to viewers as 8.2. NBC bought what is now WBTS-LD for $100K a few months ago. I'm missing something here. On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > Exactly. NBC has most of the cable operators on board, Charter in Worcester > is the only one to be balking as they carry WJAR anyways. > > Will be curious to see how the CRTC deals with this as WHDH is the primary > NBC station on cable in Atlantic Canada. > > Does anybody here think that Ansin might have put 7 into the auction as well > along with 56? > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Garrett Wollman > wrote: >> >> < said: >> >> > I think Comcast is only concerned about putting NBC Boston in the 10 >> > slot >> > on the HD tier. The SD channels are just a nuisance to them now. >> >> > What I can't figure out is how WBTS is now wagging the dog. Should't >> > they >> > simply mirror what WNEU is doing and not the other way around? >> >> > The who thing is borderline absorb as WBTS gives no coverage to the >> > south >> > shore and MetroWest is marginal at best. >> >> Why would Comcast, of all companies, be concerned about OTA viewership >> in areas where they already have near universal cable penetration? >> Cord-cutters live in the city, not Plymouth or Milford. >> >> -GAWollman >> > From bob.bosra@demattia.net Wed Nov 2 00:04:55 2016 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 00:04:55 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> Message-ID: No signal on 32 or 46 here in Northborough. All the other Boston stations, and a couple in Rhode Island, are fine. -Bob On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > On 11/1/2016 9:36 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > >> < >> said: >> >> There are rules for that, and my read of those rules is that: >>> >> >> (a) Because WTMU/WBTS was on analog 32, it should be virtual 32 >>> >> >> Except that they haven't been on analog 32 in a long time: they were >> on analog 46, under STA, before flash-cutting to digital when NBC >> offered to pay for it. My read of the filings is that they never >> intended to build this digital facility, and were just waiting for the >> auction proceeds. >> > > I don't see a loophole in the rules for "they haven't been on analog xx > for a long time" or for "they used this channel under STA"; the procedure > under the A/51 standard, as incorporated into FCC rules, simply looks at > "what was the analog channel assignment pre-transition?" > > And the fact remains that "32" is an available major channel number in > both the Boston DMA and all adjoining DMAs, so it really was the logical > place for WTMU/WBTS to go, at least until Comcast's lawyers got involved. > > (I do not understand AT ALL why Comcast didn't then shuffle its lineups so > that NBC Boston would be 8 both OTA and on cable. That puzzles me. The > local access channels could easily have shifted from 8 to 10 without any > regulatory problems, at least AIUI.) > > > > From 011010001@interpring.com Wed Nov 2 09:26:09 2016 From: 011010001@interpring.com (Rob Landry) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 09:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Brian Dogde slapped by FCC, finally In-Reply-To: <7b90dc76-4407-60f4-81b5-7c3fbc1ad343@fybush.com> References: <22552.40648.761382.960297@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <7b90dc76-4407-60f4-81b5-7c3fbc1ad343@fybush.com> Message-ID: Assuming Mr. Dodge can find some land, he can install a Valcom whip. They sell for less than $20k; my understanding is that Alex Langer got WZBR on the air in Hyde Park for about $50k total. Rob On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Scott Fybush wrote: > I'm told the Knox Marsh Road site is gone - foreclosure sale, followed by the > removal of the tower, which went to Jim Bleikamp in Maine and is now being > used by his WCME 900. I hope he performed an exorcism on it when he put it > back up! From wollman@bimajority.org Wed Nov 2 10:03:12 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:03:12 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <22553.61984.252845.620321@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Under the letter of the law is WBTS-LD even legal? In theory all > WBTS-LD is supposed to do is relay WNEU. but the way it has been > announced WBTS-LD will be the primary signal and WNEU will carry NBC > Boston on 60.2 which will show to viewers as 8.2. LPTVs are free to originate content. -GAWollman From raccoonradio@gmail.com Fri Nov 4 21:30:26 2016 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 21:30:26 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info Message-ID: Postcard from Xfinity for their subscrivers.Among changes: Dec 1,NECN HD to 840,WBTS TV HD to 810, Cozi TV to 935...Dec 30,WWDP-TV moves from CH 10 to 81.WBTS TV to CH 10. WBTS starts NBC Jan 1. From paulranderson@charter.net Sat Nov 5 14:38:44 2016 From: paulranderson@charter.net (Paul Anderson) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 14:38:44 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Nov 2, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > Exactly. NBC has most of the cable operators on board, Charter in Worcester > is the only one to be balking as they carry WJAR anyways. Charter carries WJAR on channel 10 in SD. They don?t carry it in HD at all. I still don?t understand how NBC/Comcast can just pick a virtual channel number out of a hat. And will WNEU broadcast NBC Boston with virtual channel 8.2 and not 60.2? Really? Can stations have their sub channels on a different virtual channel number than their main channel? And Telemundo will continue on 60.1? And how will the newspapers show NBC Boston? Channel 8, I assume. Paul From kvahey@gmail.com Sat Nov 5 22:21:02 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 22:21:02 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: NBC is treating WBTS-LD as the main transmitter and it will scan as 8.1. They paid a whopping $100K for it. NBC is citing that only 3.7 of the market watches OTA which I don't believe for a second. https://www.tvb.org/Public/Research/CompetitiveMedia/CableADS/ADS,Wired-CableandBroadcastOnlyPenetrationbyDMA.aspx In any event the signal issue doesn't seem to bother them. If they follow what they have done in Connecticut and San Jose they will never mention a channel number on the air and just brand as NBC Boston. I guess print listings will say Channel 8. I was told that Comcast thought about putting WBTS on 808 but Ansin would have made a stink as WLVI lives there for now until we see how the auction plays out. The harsh reality is NBC will become a cable station as of Jan 1. They have written off the south shore completely for OTA and Metrowest looks spotty at best. On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Paul Anderson wrote: > On Nov 2, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > > > Exactly. NBC has most of the cable operators on board, Charter in > Worcester > > is the only one to be balking as they carry WJAR anyways. > > Charter carries WJAR on channel 10 in SD. They don?t carry it in HD at > all. > > I still don?t understand how NBC/Comcast can just pick a virtual channel > number out of a hat. > > And will WNEU broadcast NBC Boston with virtual channel 8.2 and not 60.2? > Really? Can stations have their sub channels on a different virtual > channel number than their main channel? > > And Telemundo will continue on 60.1? > > And how will the newspapers show NBC Boston? Channel 8, I assume. > > Paul > From richard@chonak.com Sat Nov 5 22:58:42 2016 From: richard@chonak.com (Richard Chonak) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 22:58:42 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <03237e05-751e-1573-36f9-9c433f9d91c2@chonak.com> Is the transmitter on the air now? --rc On 11/05/2016 10:21 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > The harsh reality is NBC will become a cable station as of Jan 1. They have > written off the south shore completely for OTA and Metrowest looks spotty > at best. > > From marklaurence@mac.com Sat Nov 5 23:23:46 2016 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 23:23:46 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > > The harsh reality is NBC will become a cable station as of Jan 1. They have > written off the south shore completely for OTA and Metrowest looks spotty > at best. This is only partially the fault of NBC's pathetic OTA signal plan. There should be dozens of additional stations made available to cover suburban areas which have no TV reception since digital TV became the law. I don't think anyone on the Cape can receive TV without cable, and I know for sure that there's nothing on OTA TV west of Worcester. Cord-cutters are not being forced to buy network stations from cable or satellite though. You can watch live local newscasts from channels 5, 7, and 25 now, streaming on a Roku box, and most of the network shows on Hulu the next day. From a purely logistical standpoint, it seems like a waste to distribute this content through broadband internet instead of OTA broadcasting. From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Nov 6 01:09:27 2016 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 01:09:27 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> Message-ID: Nothing on OTA TV west of Worcester? What about the Springfield stations? On 11/5/2016 11:23 PM, Mark Laurence wrote: > On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: >> The harsh reality is NBC will become a cable station as of Jan 1. They have >> written off the south shore completely for OTA and Metrowest looks spotty >> at best. > This is only partially the fault of NBC's pathetic OTA signal plan. There should be dozens of additional stations made available to cover suburban areas which have no TV reception since digital TV became the law. I don't think anyone on the Cape can receive TV without cable, and I know for sure that there's nothing on OTA TV west of Worcester. > > Cord-cutters are not being forced to buy network stations from cable or satellite though. You can watch live local newscasts from channels 5, 7, and 25 now, streaming on a Roku box, and most of the network shows on Hulu the next day. From a purely logistical standpoint, it seems like a waste to distribute this content through broadband internet instead of OTA broadcasting. > -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. | 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 | Newton, MA 02459 617.367.0468 | Fx:617.507.7856 | http://www.attorneyross.com From kvahey@gmail.com Sun Nov 6 01:26:28 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:26:28 -0400 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> Message-ID: Mark The Cape does have Channel 58 which Don Moore built in the 1980's only to see it ruined when must carry was abolished the day the station went on the air. http://www.inc.com/magazine/19860801/6554.html Moore wound up selling Channel 58 to BU to simulcast Channel 68 back when BU had the Red Sox TV rights. Here is something to think about. When was the last time you saw somebody watching a portable TV ( security guard, parking lot attendant) since the conversion to digital? On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Mark Laurence wrote: > On Nov 5, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > > > > The harsh reality is NBC will become a cable station as of Jan 1. They > have > > written off the south shore completely for OTA and Metrowest looks spotty > > at best. > > This is only partially the fault of NBC's pathetic OTA signal plan. There > should be dozens of additional stations made available to cover suburban > areas which have no TV reception since digital TV became the law. I don't > think anyone on the Cape can receive TV without cable, and I know for sure > that there's nothing on OTA TV west of Worcester. > > Cord-cutters are not being forced to buy network stations from cable or > satellite though. You can watch live local newscasts from channels 5, 7, > and 25 now, streaming on a Roku box, and most of the network shows on Hulu > the next day. From a purely logistical standpoint, it seems like a waste to > distribute this content through broadband internet instead of OTA > broadcasting. From kvahey@gmail.com Sun Nov 6 01:55:58 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 01:55:58 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info Message-ID: Nobody has reported seeing a signal yet - let's see what happens November 10th On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Richard Chonak via Boston-Radio-Interest < boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Richard Chonak > To: boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org > Cc: > Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 22:58:42 -0400 > Subject: Re: NBC Boston info > Is the transmitter on the air now? > > --rc > > > > On 11/05/2016 10:21 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > >> The harsh reality is NBC will become a cable station as of Jan 1. They >> have >> written off the south shore completely for OTA and Metrowest looks spotty >> at best. >> >> >> > From ashboy1951@gmail.com Sun Nov 6 06:40:41 2016 From: ashboy1951@gmail.com (Doug Drown) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:40:41 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info Message-ID: I've been reading all this with great interest. Aside from NBC's snit with Ansin, I have to say (as a layman, admittedly) that it makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would a network sacrifice an OTA presence in a major market for the sake of something decidedly inferior? From jjlehmann@comcast.net Sun Nov 6 14:19:27 2016 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:19:27 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59E42FE6-9678-4C4C-A6E3-B8B1E9539A1C@comcast.net> WBTS has been for a few weeks, and continues to be right Joe z. Jeff Lehmann > On Nov 6, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > > Nobody has reported seeing a signal yet - let's see what happens November > 10th > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Richard Chonak via Boston-Radio-Interest < > boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org> wrote: > >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Richard Chonak >> To: boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org >> Cc: >> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 22:58:42 -0400 >> Subject: Re: NBC Boston info >> Is the transmitter on the air now? >> >> --rc >> >> >> >>> On 11/05/2016 10:21 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: >>> >>> The harsh reality is NBC will become a cable station as of Jan 1. They >>> have >>> written off the south shore completely for OTA and Metrowest looks spotty >>> at best. >>> >>> >>> >> From jjlehmann@comcast.net Sun Nov 6 14:21:17 2016 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:21:17 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <59E42FE6-9678-4C4C-A6E3-B8B1E9539A1C@comcast.net> References: <59E42FE6-9678-4C4C-A6E3-B8B1E9539A1C@comcast.net> Message-ID: Sorry, my phone sent this before I was finished. WBTS is and has been for a few weeks on the air as a 100% simulcast of WNEU. The calls show up as WNEU, and the virtual channels are 60.1, 60.2, and 60.3. Jeff Lehmann > On Nov 6, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Jeff Lehmann wrote: > > WBTS has been for a few weeks, and continues to be right Joe z. > > Jeff Lehmann > >> On Nov 6, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Kevin Vahey wrote: >> >> Nobody has reported seeing a signal yet - let's see what happens November >> 10th >> >> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Richard Chonak via Boston-Radio-Interest < >> boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Richard Chonak >>> To: boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org >>> Cc: >>> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 22:58:42 -0400 >>> Subject: Re: NBC Boston info >>> Is the transmitter on the air now? >>> >>> --rc >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 11/05/2016 10:21 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: >>>> >>>> The harsh reality is NBC will become a cable station as of Jan 1. They >>>> have >>>> written off the south shore completely for OTA and Metrowest looks spotty >>>> at best. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> From gary@garysicecream.com Sun Nov 6 15:26:24 2016 From: gary@garysicecream.com (Gary's Ice Cream) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 15:26:24 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048c01d2386c$0bf56260$23e02720$@garysicecream.com> Remember NBC is owned by Comcast. Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com -----Original Message----- From: Boston-Radio-Interest [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Doug Drown Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 6:41 AM To: boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org Subject: Re: NBC Boston info I've been reading all this with great interest. Aside from NBC's snit with Ansin, I have to say (as a layman, admittedly) that it makes absolutely no sense to me. Why would a network sacrifice an OTA presence in a major market for the sake of something decidedly inferior? From rbello@belloassoc.com Sun Nov 6 16:10:58 2016 From: rbello@belloassoc.com (Ron Bello) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 16:10:58 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: NBC has been at odds with Ed Ansin for almost 30 years They took the network away from him in Miami the late 80's (switch date 1-1-89) Why change in Boston ? 1) NBC controls the station 2) Don't have to pay Ansin millions every year 3) They stick to him by devaluing WHDH-TV by hundreds (?) of millions --------------------------------------------------- On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Doug Drown wrote: > I've been reading all this with great interest. Aside from NBC's snit with > Ansin, I have to say (as a layman, admittedly) that it makes absolutely no > sense to me. Why would a network sacrifice an OTA presence in a major > market for the sake of something decidedly inferior? > From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Nov 6 19:52:18 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 19:52:18 -0500 Subject: UNS: Re: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22559.53314.762903.507500@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I've been reading all this with great interest. Aside from NBC's snit with > Ansin, I have to say (as a layman, admittedly) that it makes absolutely no > sense to me. Why would a network sacrifice an OTA presence in a major > market for the sake of something decidedly inferior? Comcast/NBC has little incentive to care about OTA viewership. If people want to watch SNF, Olympics, and the many other events that NBC controls broadcast rights to, they'll have to pony up for cable, which actually earns them money. "Free" OTA television is a loss leader. This is particularly the caes at a time when basic cable (i.e., Comcast) is losing hundreds of thousands of subs per year to cord-cutting. The only reason the OTA broadcasts still exist is that there are government and contractual concessions that counterbalance the cost of operation, like different copyright licensing terms. -GAWollman From scott@fybush.com Sun Nov 6 16:08:16 2016 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 16:08:16 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <59E42FE6-9678-4C4C-A6E3-B8B1E9539A1C@comcast.net> Message-ID: <21cca96c-7af1-185c-7626-606fd8516c51@fybush.com> On 11/6/2016 2:21 PM, Jeff Lehmann wrote: > Sorry, my phone sent this before I was finished. > > WBTS is and has been for a few weeks on the air as a 100% simulcast > of WNEU. The calls show up as WNEU, and the virtual channels are > 60.1, 60.2, and 60.3. And this is as good an opportunity as any to explain what I think will actually happen later this week: In the new world of digital TV, all the NBC engineers have to do is to reprogram the encoder that feeds WBTS. Instead of sending it the exact same data stream that's going to WNEU (as appears now to be the case), they'll reprogram the stream to have the NBC Boston preview channel appear on "8.1" (and, I strongly suspect, to have the Telemundo feed show up as 60.4 or somesuch.) You won't see any on-air testing; they'll just reprogram the encoder at some point, and anyone who rescans after that (and who can get the WBTS signal) will suddenly see "8.1" appear on their TV where it wasn't there before. From kvahey@gmail.com Mon Nov 7 02:14:56 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 02:14:56 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Doug I find it telling that the only people complaining that Channels 4,5, 38 and 44 have been on reduced power the past 2 weeks are in Rhode Island where the Boston stations are not available on cable but beam a strong OTA signal. Providence local news used to be a high quality broadcast ( especially Channel 10 ) but now it is a weak product and Channel 6 (WLNE) is an embarrassment. On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Doug Drown wrote: > I've been reading all this with great interest. Aside from NBC's snit with > Ansin, I have to say (as a layman, admittedly) that it makes absolutely no > sense to me. Why would a network sacrifice an OTA presence in a major > market for the sake of something decidedly inferior? > From ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu Sun Nov 6 14:22:45 2016 From: ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu (Sean Smyth) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 14:22:45 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sunday, November 6, 2016, Doug Drown wrote: > I've been reading all this with great interest. Aside from NBC's snit with > Ansin, I have to say (as a layman, admittedly) that it makes absolutely no > sense to me. Why would a network sacrifice an OTA presence in a major > market for the sake of something decidedly inferior? > NBC did it c. 2001 in the Bay Area. That was when steaming was a nonentity. I can't remember if NBC or the new owners of KRON pulled the plug on the affiliation, though. -- Sent from my iPhone From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Nov 7 10:08:38 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:08:38 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22560.39158.474978.162380@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > NBC did it c. 2001 in the Bay Area. That was when steaming was a > nonentity. I can't remember if NBC or the new owners of KRON pulled the > plug on the affiliation, though. That was the all about NBC trying to reverse the cash flow. Up to that point, affiliates received cash compensation from the network for carriage of network shows, in addition to local spot avails during the network hours. When KRON's affiliation came up for renewal, NBC demanded that the station pay for the programming rather than the other way around. Both sides stuck by their guns, and KNTV (an ABC affiliate whose analog signal was then on Loma Prieta, half way between San Jose and Santa Cruz) agreed to pay what NBC was demanding. KNTV got the affiliation and was eventually sold to NBC, and that changed the structure of affiliation deals throughout the industry. That was what drove the huge increase in retransmission fees charged by local stations to cable and satellite subscribers -- most of the money goes right out the door to pay for the network affiliation. -GAWollman From map@mapinternet.com Mon Nov 7 11:25:23 2016 From: map@mapinternet.com (M.Casey) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:25:23 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> Message-ID: 22,40,57, 50/51 & Springfield's version of Channel 3 are on OTA TV. 40 & 57 have , sort of, a reasonable coverage area. 22 is just fair and suffers from low power on RF channel 11. 3 and 50/51 are UHF low power stations. The Hartford area stations-3, 18, 20, 24, 30, 61 cover up into the lower CT River Valley on OTA TV. But, to be fair, there are few places in the area between Worcester and 15/20 miles east of the Connecticut River that have OTA TV reception. That's a large geographic area that, for the most part, had some coverage from OTA TV stations before digital. I know that some engineers will disagree, mostly because of predicted interference (that would rarely occur), but even with closer station spacing, most digital TV stations should have 20-50% of their analog power to effectively duplicate their coverage on digital, not 5-20% (or even much less in many cases). Today's coverage problem (with the, mostly, 5-20% of analog power limits), is not quite as bad in flat terrain areas like most of Florida, but much worse in mountainous areas, like most of New England. Mark Casey K1MAP -----Original Message----- From: A Joseph Ross Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 1:09 AM To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: NBC Boston info Nothing on OTA TV west of Worcester? What about the Springfield stations? On 11/5/2016 11:23 PM, Mark Laurence wrote: I don't think anyone on the Cape can receive TV without cable, and I know for sure that there's nothing on OTA TV west of Worcester. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13360 - Release Date: 11/06/16 From webmaster@rabbitears.info Mon Nov 7 14:43:14 2016 From: webmaster@rabbitears.info (Trip Ericson) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:43:14 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> Message-ID: As an engineer, I disagree because you're comparing apples and oranges. Analog power was peak power. You only hit 5000 kW analog when a solid black picture was being transmitted; the rest of the time, the signal was lower than that. ATSC digital power is average power. Since ATSC's peak to average ratio is about 3-5 dB (with the maximum, very rarely, being 7 dB), the typical peak power of a 1000 kW ATSC signal is closer to 2000-3000 kW. That's a 3 dB difference on UHF. And then that doesn't take into account the difference in receive thresholds. A perfect digital decode requires an SNR of 15 dB, give or take a bit of margin to account for fading. A decent analog picture required something like 30 dB SNR, and a perfect picture was closer to 50 dB SNR. So the power has gone down, at best, 6 dB on UHF, but the margin for reception has dropped at least 15 dB, depending on how clear you want to make the picture before calling it acceptable. The real difference is that people were willing to put up with very poor pictures in analog and low-VHF was more forgiving of rough terrain. Even if you ramped up the power and put digital stations back on low-VHF, many of those people still wouldn't have service because the signal was never that great to start with. Here's a good example. WGBX's analog was at 1100 kW. Its digital is now 500 kW. That's slightly more than 3 dB of difference. They're basically equivalent when you account for the difference between peak and average power. An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. - Trip www.rabbitears.info On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:25 AM, M.Casey wrote: > 22,40,57, 50/51 & Springfield's version of Channel 3 are on OTA TV. 40 & > 57 have , sort of, a reasonable coverage area. 22 is just fair and suffers > from low power on RF channel 11. 3 and 50/51 are UHF low power stations. > The Hartford area stations-3, 18, 20, 24, 30, 61 cover up into the lower CT > River Valley on OTA TV. But, to be fair, there are few places in the area > between Worcester and 15/20 miles east of the Connecticut River that have > OTA TV reception. That's a large geographic area that, for the most part, > had some coverage from OTA TV stations before digital. > > I know that some engineers will disagree, mostly because of predicted > interference (that would rarely occur), but even with closer station > spacing, most digital TV stations should have 20-50% of their analog power > to effectively duplicate their coverage on digital, not 5-20% (or even much > less in many cases). Today's coverage problem (with the, mostly, 5-20% of > analog power limits), is not quite as bad in flat terrain areas like most > of Florida, but much worse in mountainous areas, like most of New England. > > Mark Casey > K1MAP > > -----Original Message----- From: A Joseph Ross > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2016 1:09 AM > To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org > Subject: Re: NBC Boston info > > Nothing on OTA TV west of Worcester? What about the Springfield stations? > > > On 11/5/2016 11:23 PM, Mark Laurence wrote: > I don't think anyone on the Cape can receive TV without cable, and I know > for sure that there's nothing on OTA TV west of Worcester. > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13360 - Release Date: 11/06/16 > > From marklaurence@mac.com Mon Nov 7 18:42:41 2016 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:42:41 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> Message-ID: <06D378DC-C0C8-4417-9A45-D70E7D1F90AB@mac.com> Well, having had TVs in Rutland, 12 miles northwest of Worcester, for decades, I can tell you that in the analog days we got clear reception on 2, 4, 5, 7, and 27, plus shaky reception of 3 and 19 from western Mass. Now, even with a rooftop antenna, we get absolutely nothing but 27. (Sorry, in my earlier post when I said we get nothing, I forgot about 27. I don't speak Spanish. Which makes me wonder why the owners of 27 don't put an English service on a secondary channel to serve OTA viewers in central MA who can't get anything else.) > On Nov 7, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Trip Ericson wrote: > Here's a good example. WGBX's analog was at 1100 kW. Its digital is now > 500 kW. That's slightly more than 3 dB of difference. They're basically > equivalent when you account for the difference between peak and average > power. An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding > interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, > Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious > terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. > > - Trip > www.rabbitears.info >> From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Nov 7 21:14:26 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 21:14:26 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> Message-ID: <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding > interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, > Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious > terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. Of course, nobody *has* outdoor antennas any more, and plenty of people in MDUs don't even have the option (the OTARD rule doesn't help unless they have a balcony). Which, again, is a good reason for Comcast not to invest too much into WBTS-LD's OTA signal. They'd be better off working on direct feeds to the few outlying cable systems they don't already own. (Satellite may be another story, but I assume the satellite receive sites are reasonably close to Needham anyway. -GAWollman From kvahey@gmail.com Mon Nov 7 22:01:48 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:01:48 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from Needham. I understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS on Canadian systems On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < webmaster@rabbitears.info> said: > > > An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding > > interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, > > Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious > > terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. > > Of course, nobody *has* outdoor antennas any more, and plenty of > people in MDUs don't even have the option (the OTARD rule doesn't help > unless they have a balcony). > > Which, again, is a good reason for Comcast not to invest too much into > WBTS-LD's OTA signal. They'd be better off working on direct feeds to > the few outlying cable systems they don't already own. (Satellite may > be another story, but I assume the satellite receive sites are > reasonably close to Needham anyway. > > -GAWollman > > From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Nov 7 22:04:32 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:04:32 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <22561.16576.684290.604919@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from Needham. I > understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS on Canadian > systems Pretty sure NBC cares next to nothing about that. It doesn't feed either of the domestic DTH satellite providers. -GAWollman From kvahey@gmail.com Mon Nov 7 22:14:01 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:14:01 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22561.16576.684290.604919@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Scott - Does the CRTC have to approve WBTS? On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > Agreed that NBC doesn't care, but Canadian regulators sure do. I > wouldn't be surprised to see WDIV show up on Maritimes cable systems, at > least temporarily. > > On Nov 7, 2016 10:05 PM, "Garrett Wollman" wrote: > >> < said: >> >> > Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from Needham. I >> > understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS on Canadian >> > systems >> >> Pretty sure NBC cares next to nothing about that. It doesn't feed >> either of the domestic DTH satellite providers. >> >> -GAWollman >> >> From jjlehmann@comcast.net Mon Nov 7 21:24:23 2016 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 21:24:23 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <06D378DC-C0C8-4417-9A45-D70E7D1F90AB@mac.com> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <06D378DC-C0C8-4417-9A45-D70E7D1F90AB@mac.com> Message-ID: <3D3EDF53-A500-4014-B942-88280EA698C9@comcast.net> Is your outdoor antenna only for VHF? The only non extreme local you mention that wasn't VHF was 19. Seems you should have gotten reception of at least 25, 38, 56, and 66 in the analog days. These days all the major Boston channels are on UHF, and 27 is probably close enough for you to pick it up with a paper clip. Also, I see more outdoor TV antennas now these days with the cord cutting going on, than a few years ago. I don't know where we'll end up with this repacking/ATSC 3.0 stuff... Hopefully it's a big flop and things stay as is! :) Jeff Lehmann > On Nov 7, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Mark Laurence wrote: > > Well, having had TVs in Rutland, 12 miles northwest of Worcester, for > decades, I can tell you that in the analog days we got clear reception on > 2, 4, 5, 7, and 27, plus shaky reception of 3 and 19 from western Mass. > Now, even with a rooftop antenna, we get absolutely nothing but 27. > > (Sorry, in my earlier post when I said we get nothing, I forgot about 27. > I don't speak Spanish. Which makes me wonder why the owners of 27 don't > put an English service on a secondary channel to serve OTA viewers in > central MA who can't get anything else.) > >> On Nov 7, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Trip Ericson > wrote: > >> Here's a good example. WGBX's analog was at 1100 kW. Its digital is > now >> 500 kW. That's slightly more than 3 dB of difference. They're > basically >> equivalent when you account for the difference between peak and average >> power. An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding >> interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, >> Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious >> terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. >> >> - Trip >> www.rabbitears.info >>> > From ashboy1951@gmail.com Mon Nov 7 19:59:14 2016 From: ashboy1951@gmail.com (Doug Drown) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 19:59:14 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info Message-ID: I used to live on Royalston Common, north of Athol, back in the 1970s. I had a rotor attached to my TV, and the antenna (VHF-UHF) was in my attic. I got 2,4,5,7,38,44 and 56 from Boston, 3 from Hartford, 8 from Mount Washington, 9 from Manchester, 10 and 12 from Providence, 11 from Durham, 19 from Albany (Mount Greylock), 27 from Worcester, and 32 from Greenfield. Ah, for the halcyon days of analog! Who needed cable? And who needed NECN? I could get news from all over the place. From scott@fybush.com Mon Nov 7 22:08:19 2016 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:08:19 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <22561.16576.684290.604919@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22561.16576.684290.604919@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Agreed that NBC doesn't care, but Canadian regulators sure do. I wouldn't be surprised to see WDIV show up on Maritimes cable systems, at least temporarily. On Nov 7, 2016 10:05 PM, "Garrett Wollman" wrote: > < said: > > > Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from Needham. I > > understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS on Canadian > > systems > > Pretty sure NBC cares next to nothing about that. It doesn't feed > either of the domestic DTH satellite providers. > > -GAWollman > > From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Nov 7 23:29:20 2016 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 23:29:20 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5c210d3d-b198-f97a-b591-557ee718a9ae@attorneyross.com> What's CamCom? On 11/7/2016 10:01 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from Needham. I > understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS on Canadian > systems > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Garrett Wollman > wrote: > >> <> webmaster@rabbitears.info> said: >> >>> An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding >>> interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, >>> Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious >>> terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. >> Of course, nobody *has* outdoor antennas any more, and plenty of >> people in MDUs don't even have the option (the OTARD rule doesn't help >> unless they have a balcony). >> >> Which, again, is a good reason for Comcast not to invest too much into >> WBTS-LD's OTA signal. They'd be better off working on direct feeds to >> the few outlying cable systems they don't already own. (Satellite may >> be another story, but I assume the satellite receive sites are >> reasonably close to Needham anyway. >> >> -GAWollman >> >> -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. | 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 | Newton, MA 02459 617.367.0468 | Fx:617.507.7856 | http://www.attorneyross.com From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Nov 8 00:47:05 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 00:47:05 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <5c210d3d-b198-f97a-b591-557ee718a9ae@attorneyross.com> References: <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <5c210d3d-b198-f97a-b591-557ee718a9ae@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: CanCom is now Shaw Broadcast Services and they import US signals into Canada and resell them to Canadian cable companies. In Boston they contract with WGBH to transmit the Boston network stations and WSBK to then be re transmitted to Canadian cable companies. In Nova Scotia, parts of New Brunswick and Newfoundland they get the US networks from Boston stations. On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:29 PM, A Joseph Ross wrote: > What's CamCom? > > > On 11/7/2016 10:01 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > >> Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from Needham. I >> understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS on Canadian >> systems >> >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Garrett Wollman >> wrote: >> >> <>> webmaster@rabbitears.info> said: >>> >>> An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding >>>> interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, >>>> Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious >>>> terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. >>>> >>> Of course, nobody *has* outdoor antennas any more, and plenty of >>> people in MDUs don't even have the option (the OTARD rule doesn't help >>> unless they have a balcony). >>> >>> Which, again, is a good reason for Comcast not to invest too much into >>> WBTS-LD's OTA signal. They'd be better off working on direct feeds to >>> the few outlying cable systems they don't already own. (Satellite may >>> be another story, but I assume the satellite receive sites are >>> reasonably close to Needham anyway. >>> >>> -GAWollman >>> >>> >>> > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. | 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 | Newton, MA 02459 > 617.367.0468 | Fx:617.507.7856 | http://www.attorneyross.com > > From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Nov 8 01:04:32 2016 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:04:32 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <5c210d3d-b198-f97a-b591-557ee718a9ae@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <22561.27376.37178.541847@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > CanCom is now Shaw Broadcast Services and they import US signals into > Canada and resell them to Canadian cable companies. > In Boston they contract with WGBH to transmit the Boston network stations > and WSBK to then be re transmitted to Canadian cable companies. Because of laws restricting who may operate transmitters on whose territory, WGBH uplinks to a domestic (US-licensed) satellite, which is then downlinked in Ontario somewhere, re-compressed, re-multiplexed, and re-uplinked to a Canadian satellite, from which the Canadian cable companies can take it. -GAWollman From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Nov 8 01:05:10 2016 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 01:05:10 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22561.16576.684290.604919@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <32e6c020-9e35-a51c-22ae-b44c6bc7c864@attorneyross.com> What's WDIV? On 11/7/2016 10:08 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > Agreed that NBC doesn't care, but Canadian regulators sure do. I wouldn't > be surprised to see WDIV show up on Maritimes cable systems, at least > temporarily. > > On Nov 7, 2016 10:05 PM, "Garrett Wollman" wrote: > >> < said: >> >>> Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from Needham. I >>> understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS on Canadian >>> systems >> Pretty sure NBC cares next to nothing about that. It doesn't feed >> either of the domestic DTH satellite providers. >> >> -GAWollman >> >> -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. | 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 | Newton, MA 02459 617.367.0468 | Fx:617.507.7856 | http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Nov 8 01:05:46 2016 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 01:05:46 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <5c210d3d-b198-f97a-b591-557ee718a9ae@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <878bef4c-a458-2c40-abbd-883a5d280dea@attorneyross.com> Thank you. On 11/8/2016 12:47 AM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > CanCom is now Shaw Broadcast Services and they import US signals into > Canada and resell them to Canadian cable companies. > > In Boston they contract with WGBH to transmit the Boston network > stations and WSBK to then be re transmitted to Canadian cable companies. > > In Nova Scotia, parts of New Brunswick and Newfoundland they get the > US networks from Boston stations. > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:29 PM, A Joseph Ross > wrote: > > What's CamCom? > > > On 11/7/2016 10:01 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > > Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from > Needham. I > understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS > on Canadian > systems > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Garrett Wollman > > > wrote: > > < webmaster@rabbitears.info > > said: > > An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding > interference from other stations, out to at least > Webster, Charlton, > Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really > serious > terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain > blockages west of that. > > Of course, nobody *has* outdoor antennas any more, and > plenty of > people in MDUs don't even have the option (the OTARD rule > doesn't help > unless they have a balcony). > > Which, again, is a good reason for Comcast not to invest > too much into > WBTS-LD's OTA signal. They'd be better off working on > direct feeds to > the few outlying cable systems they don't already own. > (Satellite may > be another story, but I assume the satellite receive sites are > reasonably close to Needham anyway. > > -GAWollman > > > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. | 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 | Newton, MA > 02459 > 617.367.0468 | Fx:617.507.7856 > | http://www.attorneyross.com > > -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. | 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 | Newton, MA 02459 617.367.0468 | Fx:617.507.7856 | http://www.attorneyross.com From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Nov 8 04:20:51 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:20:51 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <32e6c020-9e35-a51c-22ae-b44c6bc7c864@attorneyross.com> References: <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <22561.13570.722106.706309@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22561.16576.684290.604919@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <32e6c020-9e35-a51c-22ae-b44c6bc7c864@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: WDIV is the NBC station in Detroit. In Quebec NBC has always come from WPTZ Plattsburgh and Toronto cable got NBC from WGRZ Buffalo. The rest of Canada would get service from Boston, Detroit or Seattle ( most Canadian cable offers US networks in timeshifts ) What I was told is Shaw has asked the CRTC to delete WHDH for WBTS which should be a formality. On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:05 AM, A Joseph Ross wrote: > What's WDIV? > > > On 11/7/2016 10:08 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > >> Agreed that NBC doesn't care, but Canadian regulators sure do. I >> wouldn't >> be surprised to see WDIV show up on Maritimes cable systems, at least >> temporarily. >> >> On Nov 7, 2016 10:05 PM, "Garrett Wollman" >> wrote: >> >> < said: >>> >>> Garrett don't forget that WGBH still operates CamCom from Needham. I >>>> understand paperwork has been done to drop WHDH and add WBTS on Canadian >>>> systems >>>> >>> Pretty sure NBC cares next to nothing about that. It doesn't feed >>> either of the domestic DTH satellite providers. >>> >>> -GAWollman >>> >>> >>> > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. | 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 | Newton, MA 02459 > 617.367.0468 | Fx:617.507.7856 | http://www.attorneyross.com > > From map@mapinternet.com Tue Nov 8 12:01:22 2016 From: map@mapinternet.com (M.Casey) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:01:22 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> Message-ID: <60C24453CC6A48A6BB5DB97144FB93D3@laptop> Agreed on the technical points. A 3db difference in power ratings makes sense. The differences between digital and analog and a poorly designed FCC formula for a well designed digital system that over-rates digital signal expectation against old analog limits force us to deal with a so-called apple and orange comparison. ---The example: "WGBX's analog was at 1100 kW. Its digital is now 500 kW. That's slightly more than 3 dB of difference. They're basically equivalent when you account for the difference between peak and average power." ---agrees with my point: "most digital TV stations should have 20-50% of their analog power to effectively duplicate their coverage on digital" 44's digital power is 45.4% of it's analog. Of course, there's the problem of VHF stations moving to UHF. After initial problems on VHF, and due to the looming repacking, and the FCC letting up on power limits as in the LA example below, we may be seeing a reversal to VHF to UHF migration to a UHF to VHF migration. Like LA, If Boston Channel 7 was allowed 115kw instead of 11.8kw on RF7, they might find it beneficial to move their digital signal back to RF7. And, if Boston stations moved back to both VHF hi-band and low-band allocations using 30-40% of analog power, then many of those folks in mountainous areas like Central & Western Worcester County would get back the OTA TV service they lost in 2009. Maybe when TV was new in the 1940's and 1950's it was a factor, but I disagree that any significant segment of analog viewers after the 1960's put up with poor signal. I don't know anyone that did. If they got a poor signal they either got a better antenna or an outside antenna or bought cable, if cable was available. There are thousands of viewers that have been dis-enfranchised from OTA TV because of the poorly designed FCC power limit scheme for channels 2-13. The bottom line is the question for the public: After the conversion to digital, can the viewers still receive most of the same stations using the same or similar antenna they had used with analog? In the cities and suburbs, probably so, farther out in the country, probably not. If not, then digital power needs to be increased, like the example of Ch 11 & 13 in the Los Angeles market, whose original digital allocated power was 5% of analog (11,800w), and have now been increased to more than 35% of analog (115,000-120,000w) in order to more closely duplicate their analog coverage. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Trip Ericson Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 2:43 PM To: M.Casey Cc: A Joseph Ross ; Boston Radio Group Subject: Re: NBC Boston info As an engineer, I disagree because you're comparing apples and oranges. Analog power was peak power. You only hit 5000 kW analog when a solid black picture was being transmitted; the rest of the time, the signal was lower than that. ATSC digital power is average power. Since ATSC's peak to average ratio is about 3-5 dB (with the maximum, very rarely, being 7 dB), the typical peak power of a 1000 kW ATSC signal is closer to 2000-3000 kW. That's a 3 dB difference on UHF. And then that doesn't take into account the difference in receive thresholds. A perfect digital decode requires an SNR of 15 dB, give or take a bit of margin to account for fading. A decent analog picture required something like 30 dB SNR, and a perfect picture was closer to 50 dB SNR. So the power has gone down, at best, 6 dB on UHF, but the margin for reception has dropped at least 15 dB, depending on how clear you want to make the picture before calling it acceptable. The real difference is that people were willing to put up with very poor pictures in analog and low-VHF was more forgiving of rough terrain. Even if you ramped up the power and put digital stations back on low-VHF, many of those people still wouldn't have service because the signal was never that great to start with. Here's a good example. WGBX's analog was at 1100 kW. Its digital is now 500 kW. That's slightly more than 3 dB of difference. They're basically equivalent when you account for the difference between peak and average power. An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. - Trip www.rabbitears.info ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13365 - Release Date: 11/07/16 From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Tue Nov 8 12:04:54 2016 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 12:04:54 -0500 Subject: NBC Boston info In-Reply-To: <60C24453CC6A48A6BB5DB97144FB93D3@laptop> References: <013401d23452$2b99fb80$82cdf280$@comcast.net> <22553.16636.307596.906124@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <22553.17165.342768.466045@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <9ccf55e7-aa12-441a-cd7b-dbcb5cfe306b@fybush.com> <22553.27386.764957.507597@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <00B569B2-D2C0-4D98-843F-972D80278A1B@mac.com> <60C24453CC6A48A6BB5DB97144FB93D3@laptop> Message-ID: I've got an 18 watt digital signal on RF Channel 10 here and all I need to see all 4 streams of programming is a paperclip on the back of my tv! :) On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:01 PM, M.Casey wrote: > Agreed on the technical points. A 3db difference in power ratings makes > sense. > The differences between digital and analog and a poorly designed FCC > formula for a well designed digital system that over-rates digital signal > expectation against old analog limits force us to deal with a so-called > apple and orange comparison. > > ---The example: > "WGBX's analog was at 1100 kW. Its digital is now > 500 kW. That's slightly more than 3 dB of difference. They're basically > equivalent when you account for the difference between peak and average > power." > ---agrees with my point: > "most digital TV stations should have 20-50% of their analog power to > effectively duplicate their coverage on digital" > 44's digital power is 45.4% of it's analog. > > Of course, there's the problem of VHF stations moving to UHF. After > initial problems on VHF, and due to the looming repacking, and the FCC > letting up on power limits as in the LA example below, we may be seeing a > reversal to VHF to UHF migration to a UHF to VHF migration. Like LA, If > Boston Channel 7 was allowed 115kw instead of 11.8kw on RF7, they might > find it beneficial to move their digital signal back to RF7. And, if Boston > stations moved back to both VHF hi-band and low-band allocations using > 30-40% of analog power, then many of those folks in mountainous areas like > Central & Western Worcester County would get back the OTA TV service they > lost in 2009. > > Maybe when TV was new in the 1940's and 1950's it was a factor, but I > disagree that any significant segment of analog viewers after the 1960's > put up with poor signal. I don't know anyone that did. If they got a poor > signal they either got a better antenna or an outside antenna or bought > cable, if cable was available. There are thousands of viewers that have > been dis-enfranchised from OTA TV because of the poorly designed FCC power > limit scheme for channels 2-13. > > The bottom line is the question for the public: > After the conversion to digital, can the viewers still receive most of the > same stations using the same or similar antenna they had used with analog? > > In the cities and suburbs, probably so, farther out in the country, > probably not. > > If not, then digital power needs to be increased, like the example of Ch > 11 & 13 in the Los Angeles market, whose original digital allocated power > was 5% of analog (11,800w), and have now been increased to more than 35% of > analog (115,000-120,000w) in order to more closely duplicate their analog > coverage. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- From: Trip Ericson > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 2:43 PM > To: M.Casey > Cc: A Joseph Ross ; Boston Radio Group > Subject: Re: NBC Boston info > > As an engineer, I disagree because you're comparing apples and oranges. > Analog power was peak power. You only hit 5000 kW analog when a solid > black picture was being transmitted; the rest of the time, the signal was > lower than that. ATSC digital power is average power. Since ATSC's peak > to average ratio is about 3-5 dB (with the maximum, very rarely, being 7 > dB), the typical peak power of a 1000 kW ATSC signal is closer to 2000-3000 > kW. That's a 3 dB difference on UHF. > > And then that doesn't take into account the difference in receive > thresholds. A perfect digital decode requires an SNR of 15 dB, give or > take a bit of margin to account for fading. A decent analog picture > required something like 30 dB SNR, and a perfect picture was closer to 50 > dB SNR. So the power has gone down, at best, 6 dB on UHF, but the margin > for reception has dropped at least 15 dB, depending on how clear you want > to make the picture before calling it acceptable. > > The real difference is that people were willing to put up with very poor > pictures in analog and low-VHF was more forgiving of rough terrain. Even > if you ramped up the power and put digital stations back on low-VHF, many > of those people still wouldn't have service because the signal was never > that great to start with. > > Here's a good example. WGBX's analog was at 1100 kW. Its digital is now > 500 kW. That's slightly more than 3 dB of difference. They're basically > equivalent when you account for the difference between peak and average > power. An outdoor antenna should receive WGBX, notwithstanding > interference from other stations, out to at least Webster, Charlton, > Rutland, and Ashburnham, notwithstanding a few really serious > terrain-caused holes, and see increasing terrain blockages west of that. > > - Trip > www.rabbitears.info > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13365 - Release Date: 11/07/16 > > From astelle.donald@gmail.com Wed Nov 9 23:11:20 2016 From: astelle.donald@gmail.com (Don) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:11:20 -0500 Subject: Coverage? Message-ID: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> Which broadcast network did the best/worst job last night? (CBS, NBC, Abc or Fox?) I thought CBS's coverage was pretty lame and boring Which cable news channel do you think did the best/worst job last night? FNC, CNN or MSNBC? Thoughts? From joe@attorneyross.com Thu Nov 10 01:50:48 2016 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:50:48 -0500 Subject: Coverage? In-Reply-To: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> Message-ID: <110f1ab5-1cbd-4fdd-de8a-7b0ca928f5a2@attorneyross.com> I mostly followed CNN. What I liked was that they were able to break down a state by counties and say where the still-uncounted votes were. That made it possible to see, for example, that when Trump was still ahead in Virginia, the uncounted votes were mainly in some urban Democratic-leaning areas, where Clinton could still catch up. On 11/9/2016 11:11 PM, Don wrote: > Which broadcast network did the best/worst job last night? (CBS, NBC, > Abc or Fox?) > > > I thought CBS's coverage was pretty lame and boring > > > Which cable news channel do you think did the best/worst job last > night? FNC, CNN or MSNBC? > > > Thoughts? > > -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. | 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 | Newton, MA 02459 617.367.0468 | Fx:617.507.7856 | http://www.attorneyross.com From kvahey@gmail.com Thu Nov 10 01:57:54 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 01:57:54 -0500 Subject: NBC 8.1 is now OTA Message-ID: Just did a scan and NBC Boston is now showing up at 8.1 but nothing showing for 60.2 - I am in Cambridge NBC Boston has now launched their website complete with a countdown clock. http://www.nbcboston.com/ From dlh@donnahalper.com Thu Nov 10 00:51:25 2016 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:51:25 -0500 Subject: Coverage? In-Reply-To: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> Message-ID: <4f6cd0e2-6e80-c5b1-7ac2-9b5dcf65be46@donnahalper.com> On 11/9/2016 11:11 PM, Don wrote: > Which broadcast network did the best/worst job last night? (CBS, NBC, > Abc or Fox?) I switched around between NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. I thought NBC had the best pundits and the most accurate information over all. (They also got the biggest ratings, as it turns out.) From ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu Thu Nov 10 10:04:30 2016 From: ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu (Sean Smyth) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:04:30 -0500 Subject: Coverage? In-Reply-To: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> Message-ID: On Wednesday, November 9, 2016, Don wrote: > Which broadcast network did the best/worst job last night? (CBS, NBC, Abc > or Fox?) > > > I thought CBS's coverage was pretty lame and boring > > > Which cable news channel do you think did the best/worst job last night? > FNC, CNN or MSNBC? > > > Thoughts? > When I was home getting ready for work, BBC World News was an option. Much more dry, much fewer needless breaking news alerts. It's not breaking news when you tell me Massachusetts went to Clinton or that its poll-closing time in Arkansas. -- Sent from my iPhone From astelle.donald@gmail.com Thu Nov 10 12:29:34 2016 From: astelle.donald@gmail.com (Don) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:29:34 -0500 Subject: Coverage? References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> <110f1ab5-1cbd-4fdd-de8a-7b0ca928f5a2@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <2FEB34D19A0345E79BCC66A8D62AF7FD@ownerd8aa55a4d> From: "A Joseph Ross" >I mostly followed CNN. What I liked was that they were able to break down >a state by counties and say where the still-uncounted votes were. Maybe it's me...but I got tired of the endless math and county by county zooming in... I liked when the coverage could talk about "trends"....and trying to make sense of what was happenning. Personally, I ended up on FNC a lot, to hear the commentary of what was unfolding...and why. (Again, I thought CBS had the most booooring coverage.) I know a lot of people think of FNC's Brett Bair as a lightweight, maybe because of his sort of gentle voice, but he seemed to handle live TV well and have a handle of the nuance's of the data. I did turn to the BBC Channel a few times...and they were discussing with some amusement the US election rules that throw it into the house of representatives...they all looked amused at this rule. (As a side note, it's interesting that all the US news outlets all have very photogenic men and women on with perfect hair makeup and clothes and the BBC didn't seem to value that....I got the feeling these were much more "working journalist" who just came in from the newsroom to deliver some peice of news, etc.) ;-) From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Thu Nov 10 17:58:48 2016 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:58:48 -0500 Subject: Coverage? In-Reply-To: <2FEB34D19A0345E79BCC66A8D62AF7FD@ownerd8aa55a4d> References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> <110f1ab5-1cbd-4fdd-de8a-7b0ca928f5a2@attorneyross.com> <2FEB34D19A0345E79BCC66A8D62AF7FD@ownerd8aa55a4d> Message-ID: We carried the BBC World Service for an hour or so after hours of NPR coverage and 2 hours of statewide coverage that was somewhat abysmal Paul On Thursday, November 10, 2016, Don wrote: > > From: "A Joseph Ross" > > > I mostly followed CNN. What I liked was that they were able to break down >> a state by counties and say where the still-uncounted votes were. >> > > Maybe it's me...but I got tired of the endless math and county by county > zooming in... > > I liked when the coverage could talk about "trends"....and trying to make > sense of what was happenning. > > Personally, I ended up on FNC a lot, to hear the commentary of what was > unfolding...and why. (Again, I thought CBS had the most booooring > coverage.) I know a lot of people think of FNC's Brett Bair as a > lightweight, maybe because of his sort of gentle voice, but he seemed to > handle live TV well and have a handle of the nuance's of the data. > > I did turn to the BBC Channel a few times...and they were discussing with > some amusement the US election rules that throw it into the house of > representatives...they all looked amused at this rule. > > (As a side note, it's interesting that all the US news outlets all have > very photogenic men and women on with perfect hair makeup and clothes and > the BBC didn't seem to value that....I got the feeling these were much more > "working journalist" who just came in from the newsroom to deliver some > peice of news, etc.) > > ;-) > > > From bob.bosra@demattia.net Thu Nov 10 10:14:39 2016 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:14:39 -0500 Subject: Coverage? In-Reply-To: <4f6cd0e2-6e80-c5b1-7ac2-9b5dcf65be46@donnahalper.com> References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> <4f6cd0e2-6e80-c5b1-7ac2-9b5dcf65be46@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: I did pretty much the same thing as Donna and agree with her. It was actually more fun to poke around on the CNN website where you could look at what you wanted to when you wanted to. The website and what was on the broadcast was apparently from the same database and the two tracked very well as far as updates. Average ratings, for what they are worth: Fox News 12.7 million, NBC 12.0 CNN 11.5 ABC 9.7 CBS 8.8 FOX 4.3 Total audience: 71.4 On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Donna Halper wrote: > On 11/9/2016 11:11 PM, Don wrote: > >> Which broadcast network did the best/worst job last night? (CBS, NBC, >> Abc or Fox?) >> > > I switched around between NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. I thought NBC > had the best pundits and the most accurate information over all. (They also > got the biggest ratings, as it turns out.) > From kc1ih@mac.com Thu Nov 10 22:23:51 2016 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:23:51 -0500 Subject: Coverage? In-Reply-To: References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> <110f1ab5-1cbd-4fdd-de8a-7b0ca928f5a2@attorneyross.com> <2FEB34D19A0345E79BCC66A8D62AF7FD@ownerd8aa55a4d> Message-ID: <2076ADA8-BCBC-4658-A23F-71039520711E@mac.com> > On Nov 10, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: > > We carried the BBC World Service for an hour or so after hours of NPR > coverage and 2 hours of statewide coverage that was somewhat abysmal > > Paul > Who is ?we?? Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, FL From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Thu Nov 10 22:24:31 2016 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:24:31 -0500 Subject: Coverage? In-Reply-To: <2076ADA8-BCBC-4658-A23F-71039520711E@mac.com> References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> <110f1ab5-1cbd-4fdd-de8a-7b0ca928f5a2@attorneyross.com> <2FEB34D19A0345E79BCC66A8D62AF7FD@ownerd8aa55a4d> <2076ADA8-BCBC-4658-A23F-71039520711E@mac.com> Message-ID: I work for an NPR station in the frigid very far north Paul On Thursday, November 10, 2016, Larry Weil wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Paul B. Walker, Jr. < > walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com > > wrote: > > We carried the BBC World Service for an hour or so after hours of NPR > coverage and 2 hours of statewide coverage that was somewhat abysmal > > Paul > > > Who is ?we?? > > Larry Weil > Lake Wobegone, FL > > > > > From kvahey@gmail.com Fri Nov 11 00:57:35 2016 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:57:35 -0500 Subject: Coverage? In-Reply-To: <2076ADA8-BCBC-4658-A23F-71039520711E@mac.com> References: <0172E1CC5AA14C65BE5843463A09BFBC@ownerd8aa55a4d> <110f1ab5-1cbd-4fdd-de8a-7b0ca928f5a2@attorneyross.com> <2FEB34D19A0345E79BCC66A8D62AF7FD@ownerd8aa55a4d> <2076ADA8-BCBC-4658-A23F-71039520711E@mac.com> Message-ID: I bounced around but settled with NBC as I respect their reporting team but also was watching CBC on You Tube. It became obvious that nobody was prepared for a Trump win. Chuck Todd on NBC was the earliest to see it coming but even he was in shock. CBC was quite good in their coverage Their entire coverage is archived here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkb3oFIFAXc&t=35183s On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Larry Weil wrote: > > > On Nov 10, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Paul B. Walker, Jr. < > walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We carried the BBC World Service for an hour or so after hours of NPR > > coverage and 2 hours of statewide coverage that was somewhat abysmal > > > > Paul > > > > Who is ?we?? > > Larry Weil > Lake Wobegone, FL > > > > > From scott@fybush.com Mon Nov 14 23:42:55 2016 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:42:55 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence Message-ID: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the one-and-only WLLH site. Wonder why? From Jibguy@aol.com Tue Nov 15 06:42:13 2016 From: Jibguy@aol.com (Jibguy@aol.com) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 06:42:13 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence Message-ID: <1fe3d5.6d12d37.455c4e95@aol.com> So he can somehow turn it into two separate AM stations? After that is done, he can get another translator for the new AM station. A crafty way of getting an additional translator in the market, which has a chance of working. This is opinion, not fact. ----Bob Bittner In a message dated 11/15/2016 3:18:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scott@fybush.com writes: Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the one-and-only WLLH site. Wonder why? From billohno@gmail.com Tue Nov 15 08:13:55 2016 From: billohno@gmail.com (billohno@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:13:55 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> Message-ID: <2C75B904-2B62-49DD-82CB-0A8FDD9F0523@gmail.com> Does WLLH own the real estate along the Merrimack? If so, perhaps cashing in? Bill O'Neill Sent from my mobile. > On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > > Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the one-and-only WLLH site. > > Wonder why? From gary@garysicecream.com Tue Nov 15 08:58:46 2016 From: gary@garysicecream.com (Gary's Ice Cream) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:58:46 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: <2C75B904-2B62-49DD-82CB-0A8FDD9F0523@gmail.com> References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> <2C75B904-2B62-49DD-82CB-0A8FDD9F0523@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009901d23f48$63241530$296c3f90$@garysicecream.com> No...they do not. It belongs to the City of Lowell....but they do not pay any rent for it.....Arnold got a sweet deal there. Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com -----Original Message----- From: Boston-Radio-Interest [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of billohno@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:14 AM To: Scott Fybush Cc: Boston Radio Group Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence Does WLLH own the real estate along the Merrimack? If so, perhaps cashing in? Bill O'Neill Sent from my mobile. > On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > > Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the one-and-only WLLH site. > > Wonder why? From gary@garysicecream.com Tue Nov 15 09:11:13 2016 From: gary@garysicecream.com (Gary's Ice Cream) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:11:13 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: <4C3CDAEB-2A8A-444D-92E3-0B14D9137817@gmail.com> References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> <2C75B904-2B62-49DD-82CB-0A8FDD9F0523@gmail.com> <009901d23f48$63241530$296c3f90$@garysicecream.com> <4C3CDAEB-2A8A-444D-92E3-0B14D9137817@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a801d23f4a$201284a0$60378de0$@garysicecream.com> Rumor has it that the Craig Building won't be around much longer. Most of the building has been empty for years. Once they lose that site (a flagpole with a wire running up it) what would happen? Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com -----Original Message----- From: billohno@gmail.com [mailto:billohno@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:04 AM To: Gary's Ice Cream Cc: Scott Fybush; Boston Radio Group Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence Then, I'm out of ideas as to the rationale of handing in the Lowell license. Once it's gone, it will never come back. Has the Spanish speaking demo shifted that much, such that Lowell isn't worth the maintenance and <1 kW) electric bill? Bill O'Neill Sent from my mobile. > On Nov 15, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Gary's Ice Cream wrote: > > No...they do not. It belongs to the City of Lowell....but they do not > pay any rent for it.....Arnold got a sweet deal there. > > Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA > www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boston-Radio-Interest > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of billohno@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:14 AM > To: Scott Fybush > Cc: Boston Radio Group > Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence > > Does WLLH own the real estate along the Merrimack? If so, perhaps > cashing in? > > Bill O'Neill > > Sent from my mobile. > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: >> >> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? > They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH > just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop > site as the one-and-only WLLH site. >> >> Wonder why? > > From gary@garysicecream.com Tue Nov 15 09:11:33 2016 From: gary@garysicecream.com (Gary's Ice Cream) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:11:33 -0500 Subject: FW: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> <2C75B904-2B62-49DD-82CB-0A8FDD9F0523@gmail.com> <009901d23f48$63241530$296c3f90$@garysicecream.com> <4C3CDAEB-2A8A-444D-92E3-0B14D9137817@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a901d23f4a$2bc4c010$834e4030$@garysicecream.com> Rumor has it that the Craig Building won't be around much longer. Most of the building has been empty for years. Once they lose that site (a flagpole with a wire running up it) what would happen? Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com -----Original Message----- From: billohno@gmail.com [mailto:billohno@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:04 AM To: Gary's Ice Cream Cc: Scott Fybush; Boston Radio Group Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence Then, I'm out of ideas as to the rationale of handing in the Lowell license. Once it's gone, it will never come back. Has the Spanish speaking demo shifted that much, such that Lowell isn't worth the maintenance and <1 kW) electric bill? Bill O'Neill Sent from my mobile. > On Nov 15, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Gary's Ice Cream wrote: > > No...they do not. It belongs to the City of Lowell....but they do not > pay any rent for it.....Arnold got a sweet deal there. > > Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA > www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boston-Radio-Interest > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of billohno@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:14 AM > To: Scott Fybush > Cc: Boston Radio Group > Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence > > Does WLLH own the real estate along the Merrimack? If so, perhaps > cashing in? > > Bill O'Neill > > Sent from my mobile. > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: >> >> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? > They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH > just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop > site as the one-and-only WLLH site. >> >> Wonder why? > > From jjlehmann@comcast.net Tue Nov 15 10:21:15 2016 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:21:15 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> Message-ID: Would the 95.1 translator, which is now their primary focus in Lowell, still be within the contour for a Lawrence-only WLLH? If so, I think that's the answer. Jeff Lehmann > On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > > Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the one-and-only WLLH site. > > Wonder why? From billohno@gmail.com Tue Nov 15 12:01:21 2016 From: billohno@gmail.com (billohno@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:01:21 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> Message-ID: So, the 95.1 contour was predicated on both the Lawrence and Lowell AM footprints? If so, then very interesting move. Bill O'Neill Sent from my mobile. > On Nov 15, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Jeff Lehmann wrote: > > Would the 95.1 translator, which is now their primary focus in Lowell, still be within the contour for a Lawrence-only WLLH? > > If so, I think that's the answer. > > Jeff Lehmann > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: >> >> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the one-and-only WLLH site. >> >> Wonder why? > > From jjlehmann@comcast.net Tue Nov 15 12:16:19 2016 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:16:19 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> Message-ID: No I don't think so, since it's on the Lowell tower, I was just curious if the current location happened to still be close enough. Perhaps they could move it closer to Lawrence (like the 99.5 tower, where the new LPFM licensed to Lawrence on 98.1 is), and be within the 1400 Lawrence contour, and then put a good signal over both cities... Jeff Lehmann > On Nov 15, 2016, at 12:01 PM, "billohno@gmail.com" wrote: > > So, the 95.1 contour was predicated on both the Lawrence and Lowell AM footprints? If so, then very interesting move. > > Bill O'Neill > > Sent from my mobile. > >> On Nov 15, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Jeff Lehmann wrote: >> >> Would the 95.1 translator, which is now their primary focus in Lowell, still be within the contour for a Lawrence-only WLLH? >> >> If so, I think that's the answer. >> >> Jeff Lehmann >> >>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: >>> >>> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the one-and-only WLLH site. >>> >>> Wonder why? >> >> From gary@garysicecream.com Tue Nov 15 13:14:36 2016 From: gary@garysicecream.com (Gary's Ice Cream) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:14:36 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> Message-ID: <012b01d23f6c$2024b4a0$606e1de0$@garysicecream.com> I just read through a copy of the lease for the site..... it doesn't say anything about allowing a second tenant on the tower. Maybe I found a technicality. Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com -----Original Message----- From: Boston-Radio-Interest [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Lehmann Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:16 PM To: billohno@gmail.com Cc: Boston Radio Group Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence No I don't think so, since it's on the Lowell tower, I was just curious if the current location happened to still be close enough. Perhaps they could move it closer to Lawrence (like the 99.5 tower, where the new LPFM licensed to Lawrence on 98.1 is), and be within the 1400 Lawrence contour, and then put a good signal over both cities... Jeff Lehmann > On Nov 15, 2016, at 12:01 PM, "billohno@gmail.com" wrote: > > So, the 95.1 contour was predicated on both the Lawrence and Lowell AM footprints? If so, then very interesting move. > > Bill O'Neill > > Sent from my mobile. > >> On Nov 15, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Jeff Lehmann wrote: >> >> Would the 95.1 translator, which is now their primary focus in Lowell, still be within the contour for a Lawrence-only WLLH? >> >> If so, I think that's the answer. >> >> Jeff Lehmann >> >>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: >>> >>> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the one-and-only WLLH site. >>> >>> Wonder why? >> >> From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Tue Nov 15 14:08:16 2016 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:08:16 -0900 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: <012b01d23f6c$2024b4a0$606e1de0$@garysicecream.com> References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> <012b01d23f6c$2024b4a0$606e1de0$@garysicecream.com> Message-ID: second tenant? If the translator is owned by the am licensee, thats not a second tenant. there's a difference between second tenant and second piece of equipment On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Gary's Ice Cream wrote: > I just read through a copy of the lease for the site..... it doesn't say > anything about allowing a second tenant on the tower. Maybe I found a > technicality. > > Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA > www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boston-Radio-Interest > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of > Jeff Lehmann > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:16 PM > To: billohno@gmail.com > Cc: Boston Radio Group > Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence > > No I don't think so, since it's on the Lowell tower, I was just curious if > the current location happened to still be close enough. > > Perhaps they could move it closer to Lawrence (like the 99.5 tower, where > the new LPFM licensed to Lawrence on 98.1 is), and be within the 1400 > Lawrence contour, and then put a good signal over both cities... > > Jeff Lehmann > > > On Nov 15, 2016, at 12:01 PM, "billohno@gmail.com" > wrote: > > > > So, the 95.1 contour was predicated on both the Lawrence and Lowell AM > footprints? If so, then very interesting move. > > > > Bill O'Neill > > > > Sent from my mobile. > > > >> On Nov 15, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Jeff Lehmann > wrote: > >> > >> Would the 95.1 translator, which is now their primary focus in Lowell, > still be within the contour for a Lawrence-only WLLH? > >> > >> If so, I think that's the answer. > >> > >> Jeff Lehmann > >> > >>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > >>> > >>> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? > They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just > to > Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the > one-and-only WLLH site. > >>> > >>> Wonder why? > >> > >> > > > > From billohno@gmail.com Tue Nov 15 09:04:22 2016 From: billohno@gmail.com (billohno@gmail.com) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:04:22 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: <009901d23f48$63241530$296c3f90$@garysicecream.com> References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> <2C75B904-2B62-49DD-82CB-0A8FDD9F0523@gmail.com> <009901d23f48$63241530$296c3f90$@garysicecream.com> Message-ID: <4C3CDAEB-2A8A-444D-92E3-0B14D9137817@gmail.com> Then, I'm out of ideas as to the rationale of handing in the Lowell license. Once it's gone, it will never come back. Has the Spanish speaking demo shifted that much, such that Lowell isn't worth the maintenance and <1 kW) electric bill? Bill O'Neill Sent from my mobile. > On Nov 15, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Gary's Ice Cream wrote: > > No...they do not. It belongs to the City of Lowell....but they do not pay > any rent for it.....Arnold got a sweet deal there. > > Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA > www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boston-Radio-Interest > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of > billohno@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:14 AM > To: Scott Fybush > Cc: Boston Radio Group > Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence > > Does WLLH own the real estate along the Merrimack? If so, perhaps cashing > in? > > Bill O'Neill > > Sent from my mobile. > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: >> >> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? > They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH just to > Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the > one-and-only WLLH site. >> >> Wonder why? > > From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Tue Nov 15 16:32:42 2016 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:32:42 -0900 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: <4C3CDAEB-2A8A-444D-92E3-0B14D9137817@gmail.com> References: <067a0e30-c5b4-f236-9cf7-0e1153c7ce01@fybush.com> <2C75B904-2B62-49DD-82CB-0A8FDD9F0523@gmail.com> <009901d23f48$63241530$296c3f90$@garysicecream.com> <4C3CDAEB-2A8A-444D-92E3-0B14D9137817@gmail.com> Message-ID: The electric bill on a 1kw solid state transmitter running 24/7 will be $500 give or take a few dinero. Or as we say here in athabascan Alaska, dinga. Paul On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:04 AM, billohno@gmail.com wrote: > Then, I'm out of ideas as to the rationale of handing in the Lowell > license. Once it's gone, it will never come back. Has the Spanish speaking > demo shifted that much, such that Lowell isn't worth the maintenance and <1 > kW) electric bill? > > Bill O'Neill > > Sent from my mobile. > > > On Nov 15, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Gary's Ice Cream > wrote: > > > > No...they do not. It belongs to the City of Lowell....but they do not > pay > > any rent for it.....Arnold got a sweet deal there. > > > > Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA > > www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Boston-Radio-Interest > > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of > > billohno@gmail.com > > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:14 AM > > To: Scott Fybush > > Cc: Boston Radio Group > > Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence > > > > Does WLLH own the real estate along the Merrimack? If so, perhaps cashing > > in? > > > > Bill O'Neill > > > > Sent from my mobile. > > > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > >> > >> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? > > They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH > just to > > Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the > > one-and-only WLLH site. > >> > >> Wonder why? > > > > > > From dlh@donnahalper.com Thu Nov 17 13:27:04 2016 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:27:04 -0500 Subject: Len Mailloux's obit Message-ID: I am absolutely stunned to learn that Len has passed away. I saw him at the IBS college radio convention two weeks ago and he looked great. A wonderful person and I am sure some on this list worked with him in Boston radio, before he became a professor at Simmons College. May he rest in peace. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/obituaries/2016/11/leonard_mailloux_radio_pro_teacher From sids1045@aol.com Thu Nov 17 20:30:59 2016 From: sids1045@aol.com (Sidney Schweiger) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 20:30:59 -0500 Subject: Len Mailloux's obit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EF47360-1EA3-4834-84DC-7F912C684B2D@aol.com> "I am absolutely stunned to learn that Len has passed away. I saw him at the IBS college radio convention two weeks ago and he looked great. A wonderful person and I am sure some on this list worked with him in Boston radio, before he became a professor at Simmons College. May he rest in peace. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/obituaries/2016/11/leonard_mailloux_radio_pro_teacher" I worked with him at WVBF when he was the news director. No one nicer to work with or more dedicated to excellence in his on- and off-air work. RIP. From billohno@gmail.com Thu Nov 17 22:26:21 2016 From: billohno@gmail.com (billohno@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 22:26:21 -0500 Subject: Len Mailloux's obit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <247D0D27-4B47-49C7-AD3F-2AF4E8E89DC3@gmail.com> On Nov 17, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Donna Halper wrote: > > I am absolutely stunned to learn that Len has passed away. I saw him at the IBS college radio convention two weeks ago and he looked great. A wonderful person and I am sure some on this list worked with him in Boston radio, before he became a professor at Simmons College. My condolences to Len's family and friends on his sudden passing. Bill O'Neill From radiotest@plymouthcolony.net Fri Nov 18 07:33:32 2016 From: radiotest@plymouthcolony.net (Dale H. Cook) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:33:32 -0500 Subject: Len Mailloux's obit In-Reply-To: <247D0D27-4B47-49C7-AD3F-2AF4E8E89DC3@gmail.com> References: <247D0D27-4B47-49C7-AD3F-2AF4E8E89DC3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20161118072726.02d64918@plymouthcolony.net> I never knew Len, although I was in Amherst when he was at WFCR. An old girlfriend of mine, though, is an old friend of his wife Dianne, and my prayers, thoughts, and condolences go out to his family. Dale H. Cook, Radio Contract Engineer, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html From billohno@gmail.com Sat Nov 19 14:07:28 2016 From: billohno@gmail.com (billohno@gmail.com) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:07:28 -0500 Subject: Joel Najman and WDEV Message-ID: <77B9F42A-18A4-4C6E-AAFE-D302F5C95E8F@gmail.com> I just called Joel Najman to make a request. That Joel would head straight downstairs to the legendary WDEV record library to find the song, head back upstairs and to play it NEXT, was amazing enough. But, when I requested the song, Judy Collins' solo version of the Pete Seeger song, "Turn, Turn, Turn", Joel offers on the phone that the guitarist on that single was Roger McGuinn who would later bring that song to the Byrds, who would put the song into perpetual airplay. If you're a radio guy, you may detect another oddity here. Radio (and formers like me) make for lousy listeners. Very lousy. We analyze. We consider elements, mixes, clocks, processing, mic technique, genuineness, TSLs. But, when it comes to Joel Najman (and, for that matter, much of what the Radio Vermont Group produces) I find myself comfortably in the crowd, simply taking it all in. If you're from away from here in Vermont, login to your TuneIn app or go to WDEVRadio.com and listen live sometime, particularly Saturdays, about 12:30 and throughout the afternoon (minus local spots or Red Sox). And, if you do call Joel Najman on the phone, be likewise prepared to learn something new. Bill O'Neill Shoreham, VT From raccoonradio@gmail.com Sat Nov 19 17:11:26 2016 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:11:26 -0500 Subject: Joel Najman and WDEV In-Reply-To: <77B9F42A-18A4-4C6E-AAFE-D302F5C95E8F@gmail.com> References: <77B9F42A-18A4-4C6E-AAFE-D302F5C95E8F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Longtime host of VPR's My Place too On Saturday, November 19, 2016, billohno@gmail.com wrote: > I just called Joel Najman to make a request. That Joel would head straight > downstairs to the legendary WDEV record library to find the song, head back > upstairs and to play it NEXT, was amazing enough. > > But, when I requested the song, Judy Collins' solo version of the Pete > Seeger song, "Turn, Turn, Turn", Joel offers on the phone that the > guitarist on that single was Roger McGuinn who would later bring that song > to the Byrds, who would put the song into perpetual airplay. > > If you're a radio guy, you may detect another oddity here. Radio (and > formers like me) make for lousy listeners. Very lousy. We analyze. We > consider elements, mixes, clocks, processing, mic technique, genuineness, > TSLs. > > But, when it comes to Joel Najman (and, for that matter, much of what the > Radio Vermont Group produces) I find myself comfortably in the crowd, > simply taking it all in. > > If you're from away from here in Vermont, login to your TuneIn app or go > to WDEVRadio.com and listen live sometime, particularly Saturdays, about > 12:30 and throughout the afternoon (minus local spots or Red Sox). > > And, if you do call Joel Najman on the phone, be likewise prepared to > learn something new. > > Bill O'Neill > Shoreham, VT > From raccoonradio@gmail.com Sat Nov 19 17:11:26 2016 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:11:26 -0500 Subject: Joel Najman and WDEV In-Reply-To: <77B9F42A-18A4-4C6E-AAFE-D302F5C95E8F@gmail.com> References: <77B9F42A-18A4-4C6E-AAFE-D302F5C95E8F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Longtime host of VPR's My Place too On Saturday, November 19, 2016, billohno@gmail.com wrote: > I just called Joel Najman to make a request. That Joel would head straight > downstairs to the legendary WDEV record library to find the song, head back > upstairs and to play it NEXT, was amazing enough. > > But, when I requested the song, Judy Collins' solo version of the Pete > Seeger song, "Turn, Turn, Turn", Joel offers on the phone that the > guitarist on that single was Roger McGuinn who would later bring that song > to the Byrds, who would put the song into perpetual airplay. > > If you're a radio guy, you may detect another oddity here. Radio (and > formers like me) make for lousy listeners. Very lousy. We analyze. We > consider elements, mixes, clocks, processing, mic technique, genuineness, > TSLs. > > But, when it comes to Joel Najman (and, for that matter, much of what the > Radio Vermont Group produces) I find myself comfortably in the crowd, > simply taking it all in. > > If you're from away from here in Vermont, login to your TuneIn app or go > to WDEVRadio.com and listen live sometime, particularly Saturdays, about > 12:30 and throughout the afternoon (minus local spots or Red Sox). > > And, if you do call Joel Najman on the phone, be likewise prepared to > learn something new. > > Bill O'Neill > Shoreham, VT > From Jibguy@aol.com Mon Nov 21 01:48:40 2016 From: Jibguy@aol.com (Jibguy@aol.com) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 01:48:40 -0500 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence Message-ID: <2ad1d.e3bb9c6.4563f2c8@aol.com> It may be $500./month where you are, but usually tower lights and 1kw xmtr days give us in Maine a bill of about $150. month. WJTO's (Bath, Maine) total bill is about $205./month. It's been that way for almost 20 years now. -------Bob Bittner In a message dated 11/15/2016 5:06:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com writes: The electric bill on a 1kw solid state transmitter running 24/7 will be $500 give or take a few dinero. Or as we say here in athabascan Alaska, dinga. Paul On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:04 AM, billohno@gmail.com wrote: > Then, I'm out of ideas as to the rationale of handing in the Lowell > license. Once it's gone, it will never come back. Has the Spanish speaking > demo shifted that much, such that Lowell isn't worth the maintenance and <1 > kW) electric bill? > > Bill O'Neill > > Sent from my mobile. > > > On Nov 15, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Gary's Ice Cream > wrote: > > > > No...they do not. It belongs to the City of Lowell....but they do not > pay > > any rent for it.....Arnold got a sweet deal there. > > > > Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA > > www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Boston-Radio-Interest > > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of > > billohno@gmail.com > > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:14 AM > > To: Scott Fybush > > Cc: Boston Radio Group > > Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence > > > > Does WLLH own the real estate along the Merrimack? If so, perhaps cashing > > in? > > > > Bill O'Neill > > > > Sent from my mobile. > > > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > >> > >> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? > > They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH > just to > > Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the > > one-and-only WLLH site. > >> > >> Wonder why? > > > > > > From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Mon Nov 21 01:49:45 2016 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:49:45 -0900 Subject: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence In-Reply-To: <2ad1d.e3bb9c6.4563f2c8@aol.com> References: <2ad1d.e3bb9c6.4563f2c8@aol.com> Message-ID: It was just a guess based upon what I paid in 2006-2008 for 250 watt tube transmitter daytime only On Sunday, November 20, 2016, wrote: > *It may be $500./month where you are, but usually tower lights and 1kw > xmtr days give us in Maine a bill of about $150. month. WJTO's (Bath, > Maine) total bill is about $205./month. It's been that way for almost 20 > years now.* > *-------Bob Bittner* > > In a message dated 11/15/2016 5:06:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com > writes: > > The electric bill on a 1kw solid state transmitter running 24/7 will be > $500 give or take a few dinero. > > Or as we say here in athabascan Alaska, dinga. > > Paul > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:04 AM, billohno@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Then, I'm out of ideas as to the rationale of handing in the Lowell > > license. Once it's gone, it will never come back. Has the Spanish > speaking > > demo shifted that much, such that Lowell isn't worth the maintenance and > <1 > > kW) electric bill? > > > > Bill O'Neill > > > > Sent from my mobile. > > > > > On Nov 15, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Gary's Ice Cream > > > wrote: > > > > > > No...they do not. It belongs to the City of Lowell....but they do not > > pay > > > any rent for it.....Arnold got a sweet deal there. > > > > > > Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA > > > www.garysicecream.com www.icecreamcollege.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Boston-Radio-Interest > > > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org > ] > On Behalf > > Of > > > billohno@gmail.com > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:14 AM > > > To: Scott Fybush > > > Cc: Boston Radio Group > > > Subject: Re: WLLH Lawrence...and just Lawrence > > > > > > Does WLLH own the real estate along the Merrimack? If so, perhaps > cashing > > > in? > > > > > > Bill O'Neill > > > > > > Sent from my mobile. > > > > > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Scott Fybush > wrote: > > >> > > >> Guess what the Merrimack Valley's oldest station quietly filed for? > > > They're proposing to turn off the Lowell transmitter, relicense WLLH > > just to > > > Lawrence, and use the existing Lawrence synchronous rooftop site as the > > > one-and-only WLLH site. > > >> > > >> Wonder why? > > > > > > > > > > > > From raccoonradio@gmail.com Tue Nov 22 09:41:34 2016 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:41:34 -0500 Subject: WROR's Wally Brine to retire Message-ID: http://wror.com/wally/#thanksservingb WROR's morning co-host Wally Brine has announced he will retire after 35 years at the station as of December 16. http://wror.com/wally/#thanksservingb Includes a clip of his announcement. He's the son of WPRO's Salty Brine. From ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu Sun Nov 27 08:20:33 2016 From: ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu (Sean Smyth) Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 08:20:33 -0500 Subject: Brad Bleidt: Remember him? Message-ID: He once was in control of 1060 and had a deal to buy the station, but was found to be operating a "great big Ponzi scheme" (his words). He pleaded guilty in 2005 and was sentenced to 11 years in prison. http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2005/07/27/bleidt_pleads_guilty_may_get_11_years/ Fox 25's report says Bleidt now working as a counselor at UMass Boston. http://www.fox25boston.com/news/fox25-investigates-convict-who-stole-millions-lands-taxpayer-funded-job/469998068