I appreciate that, but where are they going to get the tools to get there?If you’ve got to rebuild, might as well rebuild for the long haul.
That depends entirely on how much of it was "destroyed".Since the infrastructure in VI and PR was destroyed, why rebuild on old frequencies that will go away soon.
That's how they get the gubmint to subsidize their rebuild. Nobody should be surprised by that.The stations will be allowed to transition early because they asked to.
Why serve the public interest now when you can put it off for almost a year and have everyone else pay for it?Why build twice without a fund disbursement on the first build, when you can build once on the new channel with the fund disbursement?
I'm still not convinced of the "desperate need" and whether or not it would be as "desperate" if the public had access to OTA TV service. Of course it is in T-Mobile's interest to promote their service as "desperately needed" but is the traffic such that existing bandwidth just can't handle the load? The population of Puerto Rico (the entire "state") is just upwards of 3 million or somewhere between that of Chicago and Los Angeles. The population of the USVI is just over 100,000.An early transition also allows T-Mobile to roll out 600 MHz service earlier, which can help to alleviate "a desperate need for wireless broadband", according to the article.
Wrong. The government is only subsidizing the costs that would have been incurred as part of the repack. Nothing more.That's how they get the gubmint to subsidize their rebuild.
You don't get it, do you? The stations are off the air. They will need to rebuild. The cost to rebuild now on the pre-transition channel would have included the cost of a transmitter that will be obsolete in 18 months, before which time, they will have to rebuild again, this time on the post-transition channel, and on the public dime. Instead, the stations can avoid incurring the cost of an obsolete transmitter and related costs, and instead, rebuild on the post-transition channel now.Why serve the public interest now when you can put it off for almost a year and have everyone else pay for it?
Forgive me for being so harsh, but no one who matters cares what you think. Your cynicism is completely devoid of both supporting facts and reason.I'm still not convinced of the "desperate need" and whether or not it would be as "desperate" if the public had access to OTA TV service.
Two of the channels are only moving one channel down. Are they part of the class?Wrong. The government is only subsidizing the costs that would have been incurred as part of the repack. Nothing more.
I do get it and that's what frustrates me. This action allows them to put off their return to the air until Thanksgiving!You don't get it, do you? The stations are off the air. They will need to rebuild.
Chances are much better that by year-end, there will be some surplus equipment becoming available at greatly reduced prices. Damaged towers are going to have to be replaced either way.The cost to rebuild now on the pre-transition channel would have included the cost of a transmitter that will be obsolete in 18 months, before which time, they will have to rebuild again, this time on the post-transition channel, and on the public dime. Instead, the stations can avoid incurring the cost of an obsolete transmitter and related costs, and instead, rebuild on the post-transition channel now.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you must take into consideration the points that I have raised. My arguments have not been devoid of supporting facts. You must recall that I made note of the population of the area and how low the density is compared to our largest markets that are getting along fine without TV band being used for broadband. I suppose I didn't note that the land area of Puerto Rico was more than 11 times that of NYC but I'm sure that a thoughtful person would have figured that out.Forgive me for being so harsh, but no one who matters cares what you think. Your cynicism is completely devoid of both supporting facts and reason.
This action allows them to put off their return to the air until Thanksgiving!
Just as I didn't know that full-time broadcast could start before the Phase 1 testing start date but that's the magic of gubmint inspired dates.Weird. I didn't know Thanksgiving had been moved to August this year.
Just as I didn't know that full-time broadcast could start before the Phase 1 testing start date but that's the magic of gubmint inspired dates.
Getting at authoritative information through questions doesn't seem to yield much. It is almost like you have to trick those who know into offering up what they know.Next time, try offering questions instead of opinions.
They're waiting for a new, lower frequency to be made available to them (or not). Low power stations and repeaters appear to be more or less in limbo until everything is settled with the full power stations.Sources from both KADN and Bayou City Broadcasting have confirmed that KLAF-LD will stay on the air, but could go dark in the future and/or if the FCC opens up new filing windows to voluntarily move LPTV stations.
Funny - that hasn't been my experience at all. In fact, mine has been quite the opposite.Getting at authoritative information through questions doesn't seem to yield much. It is almost like you have to trick those who know into offering up what they know.
It looks like 2 of the 3 stations that are moving in the Kansas City market are increasing their power to the full 1000 kW, which will be nice. Only KSMO is reducing it's power slightly. Trip do you know why they applied to reduce power?
I've contacted DTV America to see what they intend to do about their LP's, KAJF on UHF-16 and KCMN on UHF-38. I'm assuming 16 can stay, but a Topeka station is moving to 16, so I don't know if KAJF is being bumped for them.
It is bumped. Just checked.
When can LP's apply to change frequencies? In the case of KAJF specifically, can they apply for and move to a new frequency when KTKA moves to 16, simultaneously?