WDCA in DC Area requests 2nd 90 Day Extension Before Channel Sharing (1 Viewer)

Geronimo

Thread Starter
Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,010
1,605
They are colocated There really is not much discussion of why this should be granted just some words about how it will not disrupt anything.
 

Geronimo

Thread Starter
Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,010
1,605
The FCC has dismissed the application fora second 90 day extension.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,696
2,753
Salem, OR
It may be notable that this request was for a second extension by a station that sold their channel as part of the reverse auction.

It seems doubtful that their new home will offer them four subchannels worth of space.

Surely there's someone in the upcoming auction ineligible class waiting for a channel but if it takes three months to iron out those applications, what does it matter?
 

Geronimo

Thread Starter
Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,010
1,605
The fact that it is/was an application for a second extension is note in the thread title. I am curious as to whether a second extension is something they can grant. I suppose that a station can always ask but in the absence of any technical problem or otherwise compelling circumstance I am not sure why another extension for a single applicant would be granted.

In any event I am sure we will see how this plays out.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,696
2,753
Salem, OR
I suppose that a station can always ask but in the absence of any technical problem or otherwise compelling circumstance I am not sure why another extension for a single applicant would be granted.
Filing the application with the wrong form is apparently a show stopper.

That said, just because the station believes there's no conflict doesn't mean that there isn't a conflict.
 

Geronimo

Thread Starter
Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 9, 2003
12,010
1,605
Well golly gosh darn and Gee Willikers it looks like the FCC approved it this time. Let's see if others apply for the same type of extension.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,696
2,753
Salem, OR
Until T-Mobile says “ENOUGH!?”
T-Mobile doesn't get to whine about channels that are in the repacked band.

If I'm reading things correctly, T-Mobile is primarily interested in the low frequencies in sparsely populated areas where a little bandwidth goes a long way.
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
51,882
16,810
Northern VA
They can expand that into most urban areas. Matter of demand. Got a couple of years at least before they consider that option.
 

dhett

SatelliteGuys Guru
Dec 4, 2013
128
45
Chandler AZ
Not to mention that T-Mobile isn't exactly rolling out as quickly as they wanted, either. In PEA 180 (Coconino/Yavapai Counties AZ), T-Mobile first notified LPTV stations that it was commencing 600 MHz service on October 31. That quickly changed to December 1, then to February 2, and now is April 2.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top