WJLP Off the Air due to PSIP Conflict

[Thundershock MN 169]

I was in the process of creating a thread on this and got sidetracked. Anyway, I saw Raymie posted about this in the "out & about" thread a couple hours ago. I think this story is interesting enough to command it's own thread. Hopefully, Raymie doesn't mind but, I'm going to C&P his post and use that as the springboard instead of me rehashing everything. I'll add some more info/thoughts below.

 

From the "Out & About" thread:

The nation's "newest" full-power television station has run into a roadblock that has forced it off the air.

 

You might recall that PMCM's station in New York was renamed WJLP, or that it has been in a tussle with WFSB over who can use virtual channel 3. Last month the station signed on with the PSIP number of 3-10. But it's off the air now after the FCC ruled in favor of WFSB, which would require WJLP to use major channel number 33—which, according to them, causes many of their contracts to be null and void. On Monday the station appealed to the D.C. Circuit of the Court of Appeals, hoping to get back on air.

I'll add to this that KYW and Ion also objected to the use if Virtual Channel 3. PMCM was also given the choice to use Virtual Channel 33 (at least in the interm) vs. going of the air. They chose the latter. And, they are seemingly borrowing from the "retrans blackout" playbook in working up the masses by stating they were forced off the air by the FCC, CBS, Meredith and Ion. I've never seen anything so ridiculous in my life.

 

Also, That Asbury Park Press article seems to only present one side of the story. Given the connections between PMCM and the Asbury Park Press I'd question how impartial their reporting on the topic is. I'll add this TVTechnology article as it's pretty much the nuts and bolts of the situation.

[rkolsen 1679]

I can see why WJLP would be upset - if they were in operation before the whole digital switch over they would have gotten virtual channel number three if it matched their prior analog signal. Unfortunately for them they are a new station.

[LTSC1980 99]

It's now temporary return air. Until December 1.

[Thundershock MN 169]

I can see why WJLP would be upset - if they were in operation before the whole digital switch over they would have gotten virtual channel number three if it matched their prior analog signal. Unfortunately for them they are a new station.

That's part of the basis of their argument for using Virtual Channel 3. They were using channel 3 prior to the transition. And, technically WJLP isn't a new station/license. So, the way they see it they should be allowed to use Virtual Channel 3. The only thing is WJLP "moved" 3,000 miles across the country, a point they like to omit. It's not like they "moved-in" from Akron to Cleveland.

 

It's now temporary return air. Until December 1.

So, it looks like they are back on 3.10. All that means is we'll be back here in 2+ weeks. The FCC must have relented a bit and is now allowing them to continue using 3.10 in the interm. But, I'd be beyond shocked if the FCC approves their "alternative PSIP proposal" to continue using 3.10. So, it's just prolonging the inevitable. WJLP wants to be on VC 3 and they are not going to accept Virtual Channel 33 just because the FCC issued a final order. Heck, the FCC even offered them use of Virtual Channel 14 as a "compromise" which they declined. Unfortunately, this is like to end up in the courts.

[rkolsen 1679]

That's part of the basis of their argument for using Virtual Channel 3. They were using channel 3 prior to the transition. And, technically WJLP isn't a new station/license. So, the way they see it they should be allowed to use Virtual Channel 3. The only thing is WJLP "moved" 3,000 miles across the country, a point they like to omit. It's not like they "moved-in" from Akron to Cleveland.

So, it looks like they are back on 3.10. All that means is we'll be back here in 2+ weeks. The FCC must have relented a bit and is now allowing them to continue using 3.10 in the interm. But, I'd be beyond shocked if the FCC approves their "alternative PSIP proposal" to continue using 3.10. So, it's just prolonging the inevitable. WJLP wants to be on VC 3 and they are not going to accept Virtual Channel 33 just because the FCC issued a final order. Heck, the FCC even offered them use of Virtual Channel 14 as a "compromise" which they declined. Unfortunately, this is like to end up in the courts.

If I were them I would just take VC14. I know would not be happy if WFSB and KYW and on the off chance someone in my service contour would think that 3.10 is one of my sub channels.

[Samantha 2878]

 

If I were them I would just take VC14. I know would not be happy if WFSB and KYW and on the off chance someone in my service contour would think that 3.10 is one of my sub channels.

 

Unfortunately for them their contracts for advertising and (I believe) the network itself apparently are predicated on getting channel 3 on many local cable systems.

 

These contracts are, unfortunately, not available from the FCC site, where the WJLP public inspection file still has information from their Nevada days.

[rkolsen 1679]

Unfortunately for them their contracts for advertising and (I believe) the network itself apparently are predicated on getting channel 3 on many local cable systems.

 

These contracts are, unfortunately, not available from the FCC site, where the WJLP public inspection file still has information from their Nevada days.

I never understood why stations are so hell bent on their cable channel numbers (like KNSD which is branded as Channel 7 when they were Channel 39)? I would think as long as they are still in the same channel neighborhood as every other local station it should be alright. I realize they want consistent branding but that's not always the case. For my Comcast channel lineup only three stations got their virtual channel number right with their cable number and two of them were PBS.

 

For example here's how the channels are mapped on Comcast:

 

ABC WMAR 2 - Channel 12 SD, 210/802 HD

NBC WBAL 11 - Channel 21 SD, 211/811 HD

CBS WJZ 13 - Channel 23 SD, 212/813 HD

PBS WMPB 22 - Channel 22 SD, 220/812 HD

MyN WUTB 24 - Channel 24 SD, 215/803 HD

PBS WETA 26 - Channel 26 SD, 219/800 HD

PBS WHUT 32 - Channel 19 SD, 202/807 HD

FOX WBFF 45 - Channel 15 SD, 213/805 HD

CW WNUV 54 - Channel 14 SD, 214/804 HD

 

One thing I remember reading on NBC and ABC affiliate agreements through the FCC is that they expect carriage on MVPD (cable) companies and they do not mention channel numbers. Now ad sales may be a different beast.

[cbs2newengland 71]

 

I never understood why stations are so hell bent on their cable channel numbers (like KNSD which is branded as Channel 7 when they were Channel 39)? I would think as long as they are still in the same channel neighborhood as every other local station it should be alright. I realize they want consistent branding but that's not always the case. For my Comcast channel lineup only three stations got their virtual channel number right with their cable number and two of them were PBS.

 

For example here's how the channels are mapped on Comcast:

 

ABC WMAR 2 - Channel 12 SD, 210/802 HD

NBC WBAL 11 - Channel 21 SD, 211/811 HD

CBS WJZ 13 - Channel 23 SD, 212/813 HD

PBS WMPB 22 - Channel 22 SD, 220/812 HD

MyN WUTB 24 - Channel 24 SD, 215/803 HD

PBS WETA 26 - Channel 26 SD, 219/800 HD

PBS WHUT 32 - Channel 19 SD, 202/807 HD

FOX WBFF 45 - Channel 15 SD, 213/805 HD

CW WNUV 54 - Channel 14 SD, 214/804 HD

 

One thing I remember reading on NBC and ABC affiliate agreements through the FCC is that they expect carriage on MVPD (cable) companies and they do not mention channel numbers. Now ad sales may be a different beast.

 

I'll tell you up here people I come across would say "What's Fox 25? Its on like a Channel 6", there are some dummies (read: not familiar with local TV) where the cable system might map the channel differently. Actually I'm tired of reading about San Deiiiagggooo's MO for using channel numbers as opposed to OTA. As many mention before, its heavily a cable market, and I think the viewers are smart enough (or care less) about the actual channel number. They're probably like NYers and call the local station by the name of the networks.

 

I've read the FCC filing, and sure WFSB isn't in the NYC DMA per se, but its parts of the DMA where Fairfield County is ether in both Hartford and NY DMA or Hartford is in the out of market carriage. There is also parts of Jersey where they can get both markets and they make a statement if the FCC's argument was true, it would be a mega market. In fact, I argue that the Philly and NYC market are true mega markets, because of them overlapping on the extreme sides of the DMA region. Also factor abutting DMAs like Hartford, like Scranton, etc. etc.

 

I actually can't shed a tear for this owner. This is like a loophole and a very crazy one, using the TWC blackout comparison is so juvenile. The owner needs to stop whining and do the right thing, use channel 33 instead.

[Thundershock MN 169]

Unfortunately for them their contracts for advertising and (I believe) the network itself apparently are predicated on getting channel 3 on many local cable systems.

 

These contracts are, unfortunately, not available from the FCC site, where the WJLP public inspection file still has information from their Nevada days.

I don't buy their fear that their affiliation agreement will be terminated should they end up on another virtual channel. Yes, they may have to re-write their agreement to reflect the new virtual channel position. I don't believe that to be the case. But, they chose to include such facts in there filings to indicate how they might experience "irreparable harm."

 

However, MeTV has shown they really don't give two craps what channel they are on in a market. By all accounts they only care that their programming/advertising is cleared and, that the "MeTV Box" is paid for. MeTV's agreements are all pretty simple, standard, boiler-plate agreements. In fact the language in the MeTV agreements is "loose" with regards to channel numbers. The only thing the station has to note is whether MeTV will be broadcast on the "Primary Stream" or a "Multicast Stream". For Example, WZME's agreement lists "primary stream" and the actual RF channel. KTVX's agreement lists "multicast stream" and lists "4.2" as the channel but, is also written to encompass KUCW. And, KUBE's agreement lists "multicast stream" but, only lists the channel as ".4 or .5".

 

I don't know that I've ever heard of an advertiser buying based on channel position but, I suppose anything is possible. And, kudos to them if they could get someone to buy on that.

 

They really just want that prime "channel 3" spot on cable because for whatever reason they likely think it will add value to the station. One could argue that placement between CBS and NBC in NYC has some value. Although, the question really is how much value? Is whatever value "channel 3" provides worth the protracted legal fight and the attorney fees that come with it? They already "won the lottery" by "moving" two stations from East Jesus Nowhere to markets #1 and #4 respectively.

 

And, I just finished reading their filings. There interpretation of the rules to try and find (or, craft) loopholes is mind-numbing. And, there omission of relevant facts (ie: their move) is disingenuous. I could go on a long rant but, I'll spare the board. It is quite evident to me that they think this will end up in court. And, they are banking on confusing a less then technically-savvy judge.

[rkolsen 1679]

They really just want that prime "channel 3" spot on cable because for whatever reason they likely think it will add value to the station. One could argue that placement between CBS and NBC in NYC has some value. Although, the question really is how much value? Is whatever value "channel 3" provides worth the protracted legal fight and the attorney fees that come with it? They already "won the lottery" by "moving" two stations from East Jesus Nowhere to markets #1 and #4 respectively.

 

And, I just finished reading their filings. There interpretation of the rules to try and find (or, craft) loopholes is mind-numbing. And, there omission of relevant facts (ie: their move) is disingenuous. I could go on along rant but, I'll spare the board. It is quite evident to me that they think this will end up in court. And, they are banking on confusing a less then technically-savvy judge.

I actually would like to read your rant. So rant on!

[Samantha 2878]

 

They really just want that prime "channel 3" spot on cable because for whatever reason they likely think it will add value to the station. One could argue that placement between CBS and NBC in NYC has some value. Although, the question really is how much value? Is whatever value "channel 3" provides worth the protracted legal fight and the attorney fees that come with it? They already "won the lottery" by "moving" two stations from East Jesus Nowhere to markets #1 and #4 respectively.

 

And, I just finished reading their filings. There interpretation of the rules to try and find (or, craft) loopholes is mind-numbing. And, there omission of relevant facts (ie: their move) is disingenuous. I could go on along rant but, I'll spare the board. It is quite evident to me that they think this will end up in court. And, they are banking on confusing a less then technically-savvy judge.

 

That is exactly what I've thought. PMCM is trying to obtain the rights to channel 3 on every New York City DMA cable system — which is certainly a prime cable position.

 

However, attempting to claim that position based on the channel the station had in Ely, Nevada, while it functions for the purposes of the WWOR loophole, does not make sense. This is a move that could have never happened in analog. Sure, El Salvador may have managed to put 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 on air, but that's a whole different ball of wax.