TV Station Channel Brands After DTV Conversion?

[tripinva]

I recall being told that KSWB-DT tried to map to 5-1 at one point and got smacked by the FCC for it.  Never saw any documentation on that though.

- Trip

[landtuna]

In any event, you still haven't answered my questions from earlier in the thread:

Actually, I thought I did.

15-odd years ago in Phoenix there was a major shake-up in affiliations.  NBC stayed on 12 and PBS remained on 8 but 3 lost ABC, 5 became CBS, 10 changed from CBS to Fox and 15 became ABC.

I don't remember confusion or hordes of angry viewers storming the stations.  It took several days for people to make the new associations then it was back to viewing as usual.  I suspect it would be essentially the same with the DTV conversion.  If the stations were concerned that viewers couldn't follow the changes without a map it would be easy and cheap to direct mail a conversion placard. 

I don't recall what was done when the last batch of changes happened (maybe because it wasn't as big a deal as you make it out to be) and I don't recall hearing the stations griping about their costs in changing their bugs, promo's and stationary either.

[Lkeller]

The above posts are exactly the reason I continue to think the best and most understandable "channel branding" should be to follow the actual assigned frequency.  To do otherwise makes TV similar to what radio has become with meaningless brands like "Qxx", "Yxx", "Cool-FM" (when 'cool' is not KOOL), "Jack/Mike/etc.".

It sounds as though you'd approve of a radio station branding with its actual calls - KQQL, say, or WMKK, instead of "Cool" or "Mike." But there's nothing intrinsically more meaningful about "KQQL" than there is about "Cool." Both are essentially arbitrary identifiers for transmitters. So is "54457," which is how the FCC itself identifies the station in Anoka, Minnesota known on air as "Kool 108" and in its legal ID as "KQQL." (The FCC doesn't license the station as "107.9," either - it's licensed as "Channel 300C," yet another form of mapping.)

Your way: "The NBC shows you've been watching on channel 3 for 59 years are now on channel 54 if you have a digital tuner, but they're about to move to channel 24. But the PBS shows you've been watching on channel 24 since the network was called NET? They're now on 25. Oh, and CBS isn't on 5 anymore, it's on 47, and ABC's not on 9 anymore, it's on 17, and Fox isn't on 68, it's on 19."

Channel mapping: "Everything is exactly where you're accustomed to finding it - NBC on 3, PBS on 24, and so on."

2. You're not at all concerned about the inequity of some stations - say "channel 11" and "channel 13" in Baltimore - being able to keep the familiar brands they've used for 60 years, while the competition has to go from being "channel 2" to being "channel 38"?

Do keep in mind that the stations involved in all of this, who have already spent millions of dollars with no immediate return on investment, had little or no say in what DTV channels they were assigned.

To go back to the fast-food analogy someone was making earlier - it's the equivalent of the government dictating that Burger King can still sell Whoppers and Wendy's can still sell spicy chicken sandwiches, but McDonald's must replace the Big Mac with something called the "McGrub Deluxe." (It's still the same sandwich that used to be called the Big Mac, but the name has to change.)

Maybe this will make more sense: right now, your computer is connected to a server at the IP address 74.201.255.130. How do I know that? Because that happens (at least at the moment I'm typing it) to be the actual ("physical," if you will) IP address of radio-info.com, pointing to a specific server in some server farm somewhere.

I don't need to memorize that meaningless string of numbers, and the operators of radio-info.com can move the site to any other server with any other IP address that's convenient for them, because there's a "mapping" process going on behind the scenes that tells your browser where it really needs to go when you type in "radio-info.com."

Would you really prefer that this site brand itself as "74.201.255.130"? Because that's essentially the same thing as forcing digital TV broadcasters to brand with an RF channel number that's both meaningless and potentially subject to change as technology keeps evolving.

The radio station analogies remind me of a story (possibly apocryphal) regarding Bay Area radio pioneer James Gabbert. He is credited - rightly or not - with being the first station owner back in the late 1960s to brand a station with the dial position (frequency).  He changed the call letters of his FM station at 101.3 from KPEN to KIOI, and branded the station K-101.

According to the story, the FCC objected to this, but Gabbert won since their was no regulation prohibiting this.  FCC regulations could not prevent his branding innovation, as long as his station IDed "KIOI, San Francisco" at the top of the hour, which of course, it did. Legally speaking, he actually could have branded his station K-101 without changing call letters at all.

Actually, back in the 60s and 70s, FM stations were much more likely than today to "round off" their frequency (103.7 to "104", and so forth) and drop the "point." Digital radio tuners changed that for the most part, since station owners did not want to confuse listeners.

I just ate dinner an hour ago - I don't understand why I'm suddenly craving a McGrub Deluxe.

[Scott Fybush]

But an affiliation change is a different beast. The same anchor team that was on channel 3 when it was ABC was right there on the same set on the same channel 3 the next day as an independent - and same thing for 5 from indie to CBS, 10 from CBS to Fox and 15 from Fox to ABC.

What's more, it's a voluntary decision on the part of the stations changing their affiliations - and one they take with the full knowledge that it does cause significant viewer confusion, and does disrupt viewing patterns. It's been more than 13 years since the big shuffle in Phoenix, and even now it's pretty much a given that the top-rated local station will be KPNX. Why? One big reason is that they were the one major commercial station unaffected by the 1995 upheavals.

Without remapping, KPNX would get an even bigger "stability bonus" - it goes back to 12 for its DTV, while 3 lands on 24 and 5 on 17.

It's important to realize that the DTV system we're transitioning into now is itself something of a transitional system. As it stands, I don't think there's a single TV station in America that still has 50% or more of its viewers tuning in over-the-air, which means the majority of any station's viewers are already experiencing a sort of "remapping" - and that number will only keep going up as stations explore new frontiers such as mobile-phone video and such.

It's a pretty good bet that by the time things settle down a few months after transition, the typical TV station will have only 8-10% of its viewers watching its digital over-the-air signal, and that number will only keep going down.

For the sake of argument, let's say I agree with you that viewers would eventually adjust to the idea that KPHO, let's say, isn't "CBS 5" anymore but rather "CBS 17." Is adding that additional layer of confusion on top of an already hugely confusing process really worth it - all because a small (and declining) fraction of KPHO's viewers will be getting a signal at 488-494 MHz instead of at 76-82 MHz?

And let me be clear on another point, too: I'm not insisting that stations need to stay locked to branding with their old analog channel numbers forever, either. The station where I work realized some years ago that more of our TV viewers saw us on "11," our analog cable position, than on "21," our longtime OTA analog channel - and that with the advent of DTV and multicasting, we'd be all over their dials at different spots. So for the last decade or so, our branding has been simply "WXXI." You'd be amazed how many people still tell me that the radio arm of the station, where I do most of my work, is "Channel 21 Radio." We've never branded it that way, but the association of "WXXI" and "Channel 21" is incredibly ingrained in this market.

There are other markets where most viewers would never recognize their local stations' OTA channel numbers as it is. Few people in Palm Springs know "Channel 36" or "Channel 42" - they're "NBC 6" and "ABC 3," because everybody has had cable for decades - and once the initial chaos of the DTV transition is over, I'd have no problem with a process by which the FCC allowed stations, on a voluntary and market-wide basis, to coordinate new virtual channel numbers for themselves if that makes sense.  I'm sure Palm Springs would do it in a heartbeat if the FCC allowed it, and that's fine.

But by the same token, if you asked most stations right now whether they'd prefer to use their old analog channel number or a new and unfamiliar digital RF channel number for their branding, the vast majority would stick with their analog channel numbers. Why force them to change (and to impose a new and unfamiliar set of channel numbers on an already flummoxed public) if they don't want to?

[TheRob]

Channel numbers, whether RF or cable or PSIP, will become obsolete eventually as broadcast delivery methods change.  We already have three stations that don't brand themselves with a channel number at all.

No matter if it's OTA, cable, satellite or whatever else, a certain percentage of the population will be perpetually confused.  I don't expect that to change post-switch.  My station switched affiliations from NBC to FOX in 1994, and in 2009, we still get calls about NBC programming or stories that aired on the NBC station's news.  We are channel 4 OTA (34 DTV), but 6 on cable, so some callers refer to us as "6" even though we brand as FOX 4.  To borrow from the movies:  some people you just can't reach.

For those of us who have recently bought a DTV-capable set, you'll find they dutifully scan and map the local stations automatically.  Even though I know where all the digital RF "channels" are located, I didn't have to use that knowledge.

[kenrayc]

Getting back to KAIL 53 in Fresno,I called the station today and they said they were approved by the FCC to reastablish there channel number to there allocated DTV channel 7 and use 7.1 ,Last year they picked up the Fresno State Bulldogs Football and Basketball games and have been promoting 7.1 as there station at home games and at other local promotions.rebranding MY- 53 to MY -7.They say after 02/17/09 Direct and Dish will use channel 7 after that time.As far as Comcast Channel 7 will still be CBS-47 that where I see confusion as far as Analog service.CBS-47 HD service on cable is channel 907. At this time KAIL's HD signal is only avaliable over the air ,Comcast only has KAIL on Channel 13.They do carry there second channel 7.2 A RTN affiliate on channel 191. AS for comcast KAIL has a direct feed to Comcast instead of picking then off the air so the signal is SD.They are still working out the details for HD for Concast.

[dhett]

You'd be amazed how many people still tell me that the radio arm of the station, where I do most of my work, is "Channel 21 Radio." We've never branded it that way, but the association of "WXXI" and "Channel 21" is incredibly ingrained in this market.

That XXI is 21 also strengthens the association.

Truth is, neither way is perfect.  I can find flaws with RF channel identification, and I can find flaws with virtual channel identification.  Also, people do adapt.  KPNX got a small edge because they had stability in the Phoenix affiliation shakeup of 1994-95, but they'd have lost that advantage had they not maintained a high-quality news organization over the past 15 years.  Just ask WROC-TV and WHEC-TV, each at one time the king of the hill in Rochester, but now playing catch-up.  I think either form of channel identification would have worked; the FCC just happened to go with virtual channels.

[w9wi]

I don't remember confusion or hordes of angry viewers storming the stations.  It took several days for people to make the new associations then it was back to viewing as usual.  I suspect it would be essentially the same with the DTV conversion.  If the stations were concerned that viewers couldn't follow the changes without a map it would be easy and cheap to direct mail a conversion placard. 

I guess the thing I don't understand about the opposition to channel mapping is...  what does one hope to gain by requiring DTV stations to map to their RF channel?  How does that benefit anyone? 

[tripinva]

I guess the thing I don't understand about the opposition to channel mapping is...  what does one hope to gain by requiring DTV stations to map to their RF channel?  How does that benefit anyone? 

The only benefit is that when choosing an antenna or something, it becomes easier to figure out what kind of antenna you need.  But that's a one time thing, after that, it's all watching, and physical channel doesn't matter.

The FCC has decided that mapping will stay.  I don't expect it to go anywhere.

- Trip

[landtuna]

I don't remember confusion or hordes of angry viewers storming the stations.  It took several days for people to make the new associations then it was back to viewing as usual.  I suspect it would be essentially the same with the DTV conversion.  If the stations were concerned that viewers couldn't follow the changes without a map it would be easy and cheap to direct mail a conversion placard. 

I guess the thing I don't understand about the opposition to channel mapping is...  what does one hope to gain by requiring DTV stations to map to their RF channel?  How does that benefit anyone? 

For years and years now both TV and radio have branded their calls in association with their dial/RF position.  This simply continues that tradition. 

I see far more confusion in the future by branding DTV channel 17 as retro analog channel 5.  Far easier and simpler to cut over to the new RF channel now and remain consistent with the method which has been in place for decades.