Incentive Auction Discussion

[Trip]

Unfortunately, it seems we'll hear more from independent owners rather than large commercial groups, specifically public television stations which, I assume have jumped on the opportunity to at least move down the band a bit for some big bucks.

On the contrary, I think the big public companies are going to have to report that information publicly because they need to tell their shareholders. The public broadcasters need to tell their owners and donors, depending on how exactly they're set up and the laws involved, thus the public exposure there. It's actually the independent privately-held groups that I expect to hear the least from.

- Trip

 

[ScottLV]

On the contrary, I think the big public companies are going to have to report that information publicly because they need to tell their shareholders. The public broadcasters need to tell their owners and donors, depending on how exactly they're set up and the laws involved, thus the public exposure there. It's actually the independent privately-held groups that I expect to hear the least from.

- Trip

Actually, that's close the point I was making as well. I should've worded it differently.
I assumed we'll hear from the independently-owned public television stations (WVIA, WITF, WUTF, WQED) before hearing from the large commercial owners (Tribune, FOX, Sinclair). But, you're right, the big public owners (I guess some of the biggest are the state-wide groups) will likely share soon, according to your aforementioned reason, too.

 

[harshness]

No stations are being assigned new locations.

I was speaking of new leases for new tower locations as opposed to a different city. As noted in osu1991's post that I was replying to, some (most?) of the movers will be assigned new tower locations. Whether that new location is geographically different or at a different elevation on the same tower, it would likely require a new lease.

As for the RF 14 movement, it is specifically addressed in the FCC plan from this document

4. prioritizing assignments to channel 5 in the Low-VHF band and off of channel 14 in the UHF band.

Item one in that same list is to prioritize stays but I get the feeling that the fourth item negates it for RF14 occupants.

 

[harshness]

The information that I hope to see shared is how much this whole auction process cost in terms of FCC overhead (including subcontractors) and later, how much it cost (again, including subcontractors) to facilitate the transition. Somewhere in there I expect to see shockingly large numbers that won't be finding their way to deficit reduction.

 

[HoTat2]

Just to be clear though ... (as my mind is slowing down these days I guess ).

Even if none of the TV stations in a market chose to participate in the incentive auction which is now officially closed.

RF TV channels 38-51 (37 is off limits anyway) still must be vacated over a certain time period in all markets everywhere in the nation including even AK and HI?

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[Trip]

I was speaking of new leases for new tower locations as opposed to a different city. As noted in osu1991's post that I was replying to, some (most?) of the movers will be assigned new tower locations. Whether that new location is geographically different or at a different elevation on the same tower, it would likely require a new lease.

I'm not entirely sure how much clearer I can make it--no station is being assigned to a new location. Period. I produced and provided the underlying data that was mail merged into the confidential letters. I would know.

Plus, it's what the FCC has said all along. The complete set of technical parameters was provided so that there would be no confusion among the recipients of the letters, but those parameters, other than channel and power, are 100% identical to the facilities protected during the auction process.

As for the RF 14 movement, it is specifically addressed in the FCC plan from this document

Item one in that same list is to prioritize stays but I get the feeling that the fourth item negates it for RF14 occupants.

No, it does not. The fourth objective only applies if it does not conflict with the first three objectives. See the actual technical appendix explaining what's happening, here: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001389808.pdf

Page 138 of 230 clearly states: (emphasis mine)

"(4) Among solutions that satisfy the objectives of (1), (2), and (3), the optimization will choose an
assignment that prioritizes assignments of U.S. and Canadian stations to channel 5 in the Low-
VHF band and avoids assignments of U.S. and Canadian stations to channel 14."

- Trip

 

[Trip]

Just to be clear though ... (as my mind is slowing down these days I guess ).

Even if none of the TV stations in a market chose to participate in the incentive auction which is now officially closed.

RF TV channels 38-51 (37 is off limits anyway) still must be vacated over a certain time period in all markets everywhere in the nation including even AK and HI?

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

That is correct.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

"(4) Among solutions that satisfy the objectives of (1), (2), and (3), the optimization will choose an
assignment that prioritizes assignments of U.S. and Canadian stations to channel 5 in the Low-
VHF band and avoids assignments of U.S. and Canadian stations to channel 14."

This is one of the major faults that I find with most FCC documentation. Each document seems to have a summary, a text, appendices and a staggering number of footnotes but they don't always seem to parse the same when taken alone. Using the phrase "avoiding re-assignment to channel 14" would be much clearer than "assignment off of channel 14"

 

[Jim5506]

This whole farce is a money grab by the FCC and NAB to sell OTA TV spectrum to wireless carriers.

They are slowly strangling free OTA television broadcasts - in 10-15 years it will be gone and everything will be pay per view.

 

[Trip]

NAB fought tooth and nail against it. I sat in the courtroom when one of their lawsuits was argued.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

They are slowly strangling free OTA television broadcasts - in 10-15 years it will be gone and everything will be pay per view.

As long as top actors and athletes are getting paid 7+ figure incomes, that's pretty much the way it has to be.

 

[harshness]

NAB fought tooth and nail against it.

I suspect most of us would fight tooth and nail against having to give up a gold claim.

 

[HoTat2]

That is correct.

- Trip

Thanks Trip;

So (at last count anyway) with some 15 stations at or above RF ch. 38 here in the LA market (5 are CD or LD class which I don't care about). Should I perhaps get ready to invest in an antenna with VHF-lo band capability?

Or is there likely to be sufficient room and/or channel sharing agreements for all the station repacks to remain in the VHF-hi and "remaining" UHF bands?

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

 

[towerdude]

Trip
Do you foresee in the future that the FCC will mandate that full powers and translators vacate channel 14?


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys mobile app

 

[Trip]

Trip
Do you foresee in the future that the FCC will mandate that full powers and translators vacate channel 14?

Never say never, but I find it to be unlikely. Interference between channel 14 and land mobile can be managed with enough filtering, and spectrum is only getting more crowded.

- Trip

 

[harshness]

So (at last count anyway) with some 15 stations at or above RF ch. 38 here in the LA market (5 are CD or LD class which I don't care about). Should I perhaps get ready to invest in an antenna with VHF-lo band capability?

While not to the level of "cutting off your nose to spite your face", VHF-low has always been on the table. Whether or not you care about them, there are already three VHF-low RF frequencies in use (2, 5 and 6) and KTVU has an application in to use RF3.

Or is there likely to be sufficient room and/or channel sharing agreements for all the station repacks to remain in the VHF-hi and "remaining" UHF bands?

Much is made of the sharing argument, but if you've got subchannels stacked up already, there's not much available to share without chucking quite a few subchannels.

Buddying up to accomplish the repack is surely going to be at cross purposes with buddying up to accomplish a particular industry goal (that I'm being careful not to mention directly but is almost certainly part of the future big picture).

 

[Trip]

Thanks Trip;

So (at last count anyway) with some 15 stations at or above RF ch. 38 here in the LA market (5 are CD or LD class which I don't care about). Should I perhaps get ready to invest in an antenna with VHF-lo band capability?

Or is there likely to be sufficient room and/or channel sharing agreements for all the station repacks to remain in the VHF-hi and "remaining" UHF bands?

Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

I think you should wait and see the results before you buy anything.

- Trip

 

[Nascarken 91xg]

Well i have to say HD8200u work's well with a cm-7777 amp common low vhf lol 73rabbit

 

[Nascarken 91xg]

The FCC is looking to speed the Auction to it's conclusion on Friday February.2/ 10/2017 it upped the per-round price increase to 15,percent and requireing bidders to use 100,percent of their eligibility in each round rather than the previous 95 percent

 

[navychop]

I almost understood that.