Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Covers all of Northern Lower Michigan (from Ludington to Tawas northward), as well as the Straits Area and Soo Region.
statmanmi
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:07 am

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by statmanmi » Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:41 pm

In a related wrinkle...

Mr. Henderson filed with the FCC yesterday 11/24 a modification for his never-yet-aired LPTV (low power TV) station W07DQ-D which notes the WLDR tower as being the intended broadcast transmission site (ASRN 1004108), still utilizing RF7. Link: https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/datae ... f&goBack=N

I'm guessing this is NOT conveying that a quick reconciliation has already occurred. Rather, I'd suspect that if the Blarney Stone folks aren't letting Henderson's WLDR team on the tower site, they also won't let his TV team visit (under the name New Ulm Broadcasting, by the way).


Perhaps I should be starting a separate post, but since I just mentioned the Traverse City filing (W07DQ-D), Mr. Henderson/New Ulm also filed Displacement applications for their intended Cadillac and Petoskey locations.

Cadillac's WVIU-LD is requested to be using RF31 from the WWTV tower on Mt. Dighton/Grove Hill: https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/datae ... f&goBack=N

Petoskey's WYST-LD displacement indicates RF19 from the Northern Star Broadcasting tower between Harbor Springs and Good Hart that has WCMW-FM and WMKC (FM) atop it: https://enterpriseefiling.fcc.gov/datae ... f&goBack=N

Cheers! ~~ Statmanmi



innate-in-you
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:54 am

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by innate-in-you » Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:24 pm

Why is this owner trying to start LP-DTV operations in a region where few people are using antennas (because of complex terrain), when he can't seem to keep his potentially more lucrative high-power FM properties on the air.

Maybe he should sell N479RH and go Greyhound?



NMCSpeaks
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:09 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by NMCSpeaks » Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:57 pm

innate-in-you wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:24 pm
Why is this owner trying to start LP-DTV operations in a region where few people are using antennas (because of complex terrain), when he can't seem to keep his potentially more lucrative high-power FM properties on the air.

Maybe he should sell N479RH and go Greyhound?
“...more lucrative...”???

What are you smoking?



ftballfan
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by ftballfan » Mon Dec 07, 2020 8:51 am

innate-in-you wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:24 pm
Why is this owner trying to start LP-DTV operations in a region where few people are using antennas (because of complex terrain), when he can't seem to keep his potentially more lucrative high-power FM properties on the air.

Maybe he should sell N479RH and go Greyhound?
Unless he plans on selling the LDs to someone with existing TV operations. He did get significant $$$ for one of his Texas stations recently



User avatar
Ben Zonia
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:35 pm
Location: Honor

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by Ben Zonia » Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:08 am

They should put the WTOM NBC feed there on the LPTV on the WMKC tower. That area is seriously shadowed for OTA from all other "7&4" transmitters. The LOS area covers Petoskey, Harbor Springs, Charlevoix, Boyne City, and the Inland Lakes Waterway West of I-75. When they had all the LPTVs on off the old "99 WJML" tower, they were only 1 to 5 kW, and were crystal clear in the LOS area. There were a dozen or more, and had a color bar test pattern on to keep the licenses, which have since gone away. This would be 15 kW digital, much higher ERP than the analog LPTVs were.

https://www.fccdata.org/?lang=en&appid= ... cid=181446


"I had a job for a while as an announcer at WWV but I finally quit, because I couldn't stand the hours."

-Author Unknown

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11870
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by MWmetalhead » Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:57 pm

The WTOM TX is definitely located in a stupid place. Not only is OTA coverage abysmal due to terrain issues, but many of the areas that WTOM *does* reach can pick up WGTQ anyway!

Can someone also please explain why WPBN and WGTU both use the same tower just east of Kalkaska? Both channels include both NBC & ABC programming, correct? Why not move one of the full power stations to the Harrietta tower in western Wexford County so as to restore OTA reception to the US-10 corridor, Big Rapids, etc. ?

If Sinclair wanted to abandon the Harrietta site completely or if it wanted to sell RF bandwidth, I could understand co-locating the two stations on the same tower (similar to the WLNS / WLAJ situation in the Lansing area). However, WPBN and WGTU continue to broadcast on separate RF channels, and to top it all off, Sinclair is still using the Harrietta site for a digital translator! Why not do away with the digital translator and simply move either the WPBN or WGTU technical facilities to that location?



CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by CK-722 » Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:40 pm

If you look at the old issues of Television Factbook online (americanradiohistory.com)(Telecasting ended in 1958) and look at the Grade B contours of WPBN and WTOM, you'll see that they had to eliminate or minimize overlap of the Grade B contours of the two. That's why WTOM is where it is. Also, as a Cheboygan allotment, it had to put a 74 dBu City Grade Signal over Cheboygan, which probably precluded the WTOM TL being near Goetzville. 100 kW/305 meter HAAT Low VHF City Grade analog facilities get out about 25 miles.

https://worldradiohistory.com/Televisio ... k_Page.htm

Closer link.

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-B ... -IA-OH.pdf

Keep in mind that the Mackinac Bridge opened in very late 1957. Not until then was it feasible to operate and maintain TV facilities based in the LP and broadcast from the UP. Just too hard to get there, especially in the Winter. So WTOM was being authorized just before the Bridge opened. WWUP signed on in 1962, for historical perspective. And SSM was too far from a High VHF TV facility for it to have a TL in the LP.


Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.

ftballfan
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by ftballfan » Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:10 am

MWmetalhead wrote:
Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:57 pm
The WTOM TX is definitely located in a stupid place. Not only is OTA coverage abysmal due to terrain issues, but many of the areas that WTOM *does* reach can pick up WGTQ anyway!

Can someone also please explain why WPBN and WGTU both use the same tower just east of Kalkaska? Both channels include both NBC & ABC programming, correct? Why not move one of the full power stations to the Harrietta tower in western Wexford County so as to restore OTA reception to the US-10 corridor, Big Rapids, etc. ?

If Sinclair wanted to abandon the Harrietta site completely or if it wanted to sell RF bandwidth, I could understand co-locating the two stations on the same tower (similar to the WLNS / WLAJ situation in the Lansing area). However, WPBN and WGTU continue to broadcast on separate RF channels, and to top it all off, Sinclair is still using the Harrietta site for a digital translator! Why not do away with the digital translator and simply move either the WPBN or WGTU technical facilities to that location?
Throw in that both WPBN and WGTU have the same xx.3. WPBN should move back to the Harrietta site with that translator (that is already located at Harrietta) moved to Ludington, Manistee, or Big Rapids



CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by CK-722 » Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:12 pm

Yes, even if they had put the tower in the Goetzville antenna farm, the City Grade analog signal would fall 10 miles short of the far corners of Cheboygan. I guess its water over the Soo Locks, but keep in mind the WTOM planning preceded the Mackinac Bridge. It was like Alaska then, and our own version of Maurice Minnefield would have had to do the flying. Who was K-Bear's Chief Engineer, anyway? But the antenna was right on top of the studio for K-Bear in that case.


Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11870
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by MWmetalhead » Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:43 pm

Certainly in the analog era, the location made more sense.

I still don't understand the reason for co-locating WPBN and WGTU on the same tower when (a) separate RF channels are used for the two licenses, (b) Sinclair still has access to the Harrietta tower and (c) a big swath of 7 & 4's southern viewing area is unable to pick up the signal reliably OTA, including Big Rapids, one of the largest cities in the market.

The 15 kW translator on the Harrietta tower is certainly better than nothing, but imagine how many more households would be able to pick up programming if it were, say, a 150 kW signal instead.



CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by CK-722 » Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:06 pm

WPBN-TV 7 used to be a wall to wall signal in Mecosta County. WWTV 9 was somewhat stronger, and WZZM 13 a close third. WKZO/WWMT 3, WNEM 5, WJIM/WLNS 6 WOOD 8, and WJRT 12 were all receivable at higher elevations, and later WGTU 29 and WGVC/WGVU 35 were receivable. Even WJBK 2 and WWJ/WDIV 4 were receivable much of the time at higher elevations with a decent antenna. The WBRN tower and the then Rapid Cablevision had head antennas for all of these except 2 and 4 at one time, or another. Of course, WOOD 8 had an off air head end antenna link for NBC programming to WPBN near Stanwood, and WNEM 5 had a another head end antenna for NBC South of Barryton. For those who are too young to remember, WNEM 5 was NBC for decades before swapping with WEYI 25 CBS.


Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.

NMCSpeaks
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:09 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by NMCSpeaks » Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:43 pm

CK-722 wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:06 pm
WPBN-TV 7 used to be a wall to wall signal in Mecosta County. WWTV 9 was somewhat stronger, and WZZM 13 a close third. WKZO/WWMT 3, WNEM 5, WJIM/WLNS 6 WOOD 8, and WJRT 12 were all receivable at higher elevations, and later WGTU 29 and WGVC/WGVU 35 were receivable. Even WJBK 2 and WWJ/WDIV 4 were receivable much of the time at higher elevations with a decent antenna. The WBRN tower and the then Rapid Cablevision had head antennas for all of these except 2 and 4 at one time, or another. Of course, WOOD 8 had an off air head end antenna link for NBC programming to WPBN near Stanwood, and WNEM 5 had a another head end antenna for NBC South of Barryton. For those who are too young to remember, WNEM 5 was NBC for decades before swapping with WEYI 25 CBS.
All,

This TV thread is highly interesting and intelligent.

Shouldn’t it be part of a NEW thread rather than the instant thread all this is attached to?



ftballfan
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:38 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by ftballfan » Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:02 am

NMCSpeaks wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:43 pm
CK-722 wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:06 pm
WPBN-TV 7 used to be a wall to wall signal in Mecosta County. WWTV 9 was somewhat stronger, and WZZM 13 a close third. WKZO/WWMT 3, WNEM 5, WJIM/WLNS 6 WOOD 8, and WJRT 12 were all receivable at higher elevations, and later WGTU 29 and WGVC/WGVU 35 were receivable. Even WJBK 2 and WWJ/WDIV 4 were receivable much of the time at higher elevations with a decent antenna. The WBRN tower and the then Rapid Cablevision had head antennas for all of these except 2 and 4 at one time, or another. Of course, WOOD 8 had an off air head end antenna link for NBC programming to WPBN near Stanwood, and WNEM 5 had a another head end antenna for NBC South of Barryton. For those who are too young to remember, WNEM 5 was NBC for decades before swapping with WEYI 25 CBS.
All,

This TV thread is highly interesting and intelligent.

Shouldn’t it be part of a NEW thread rather than the instant thread all this is attached to?
I agree! Somebody should start a new thread on the history of TV stations in this market



statmanmi
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:07 am

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by statmanmi » Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:49 am

ftballfan wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:10 am

Throw in that both WPBN and WGTU have the same xx.3. WPBN should move back to the Harrietta site with that translator (that is already located at Harrietta) moved to Ludington, Manistee, or Big Rapids
MWmetalhead wrote:
Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:57 pm
...
Can someone also please explain why WPBN and WGTU both use the same tower just east of Kalkaska? Both channels include both NBC & ABC programming, correct? ...
NMCSpeaks wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2020 9:43 pm

All,

This TV thread is highly interesting and intelligent.

Shouldn’t it be part of a NEW thread rather than the instant thread all this is attached to?
Hello All,

Here are my "three cents worth" (given that I quoted 3 of you):

I'm guessing MW is the only moderator of this board, so he likely is the only one that can segregate the recent posts that aren't specific to Mr. Henderson's endeavors into a new thread.

ftballfan noted that he recalled virtual channels 7.3 and 29.3 being the same. They were, but as of a couple of years ago, 29.3 was dropped. I can also confirm this per recent efforts, as I helped my best friend "ditch the dish" a couple of weeks ago near Charlevoix. 7.1 is NBC, 7.2 is ABC, 7.3 is Comet, 29.1 is ABC, 29.2 is NBC. That's it on those two frequencies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's my personal working hypothesis regarding what Sinclair might do (note I have nobody in the biz that I have discussed this with):

Sinclair is a big proponent of ATSC3.0/NextGenTV. I'm guessing they are considering converting one of the two frequencies to be the lighthouse. Thus far the Northern Michigan market isn't on the NextGenTV map (https://www.atsc.org/nextgen-tv/deployments/). My theory is that it'll show up soon once larger population markets are addressed.

In parallel, Sinclair/Cunningham had filed to increase the power of WGTU 29 (RF29) back during the "maximization of non-repacked stations" filing window around Thanksgiving 2017. That was approved just a few weeks ago: 9/29/2020. I'm unsure when their team will be able to dial that up--but once they do, the estimated coverage area maps show that it'll easily equal if not exceed what the current WPBN 7.x (RF35) reaches...whereas now RF29 wasn't reaching Charlevoix nearly as well per my recent visit.

Alternate idea: I'm also wondering if with the minor modification freeze lifted, had that been keeping Sinclair from requesting a relocation of either the RF29 or RF35 signal to the Harrietta tower? Perhaps they didn't want to request consideration via waiver of the freeze. Even WZPX down here in my area had to request a waiver to have the FCC allow them to move their repacking broadcast to a different tower site. (That all was approved, but maybe Sinclar knew that the FCC wouldn't consider a non-repacking relocation? All moot now with the freeze being over.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Honestly, I could see one of two possibilities playing through now:

1. RF35 (virtual channels 7.x) and RF29 (29.x) both stay at the Kalkaska tower, with one becoming the NextGenTV/ATSC3.0 lighthouse.

OR

2. RF29 gets its increase accomplished at Kalkaska (since they can now proceed), then Sinclair filing a minor modification to move the WPBN RF35 (7.x) full-service broadcast to the Harrietta tower, replacing the 15 kW DRT (Digital Replacement Translator) on RF22 they have in use now. Someone with experience figuring out protection distances and possible overlap could calculate out whether that strong of an RF35 signal could be emanating from Wexford County without causing interference with WOLP-LD Class A south of Grand Rapids and the NextGenTV/ATSC3.0 WKAR signal in East Lansing, as both of those are on RF35 as well.

So it'll be fun to see if my speculations somehow play out!

Cheers! ~~ Statmanmi
Kent County, MI RabbitEars.info Live Bandscan: https://rabbitears.info/tvdx/one_tuner_ ... 502/tuner1
RabbitEars.info Location Results: //www.rabbitears.info/searchmap.php?reque ... _id=172472



CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Re: Blarney Stone Petitions FCC to cancel WLDR license

Post by CK-722 » Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:29 pm

One of the broadcasters in Cadillac, forget which one, filed a Petition to Deny for some action that was being proposed for WBRN, AM or FM. I can't remember exactly what it was that the late Jack White told me, but the Cadillac broadcaster argued that it shouldn't be granted because Cadillac was larger than Big Rapids. A quick look at census figures showed that Big Rapids was larger. Well you could argue that Big Rapids is some sort of college town, and the people in the census were not full year residents, but you could argue that Cadillac is a resort community and had many part year residents.


Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic