Posted on June 3, 2009 by Brendan Holland

FCC Clarifies Commencement of DTV on June 12th

The FCC yesterday issued a brief Order clarifying that stations that are flash-cutting to digital on their analog channel, or are otherwise commencing digital service on another channel as part of the transition, have the flexibility to do so at any time on June 12th without further authorization from the FCC.

[Please note, this information does not affect stations whose pre-transition and post-transition digital channels and facilities are the same. Such stations can complete the transition by simply terminating their analog service.]

Currently, DTV construction permits that specify only "Post-transition" operations state that they can only be implemented after 11:59 PM on June 12th, meaning you could not begin operations until the stroke of midnight on June 13th.  With the FCC's recent clarification, however, stations are free to begin DTV operations whenever they are ready to go on June 12th.  This will hopefully allow stations to commence digital operations with less of a gap between the analog shut off and the digital commencement.  In addition, it will also allow stations the flexibility to commence operations on June 12th and work any bugs out during daylight hours.

Thus, for example, a station that is scheduled to shut off its analog facility at 10 AM on the 12th can begin DTV operations on that same channel at 10:01 AM instead of having to wait until after midnight.  The only caveat is for those stations whose early operation could affect another station (e.g., where Station A's post-transition channel is the same as Station B's channel for pre-transition).  In those cases, the FCC has instructed that the parties must coordinate with one another to ensure that the incumbent station terminates its service before the new co-channel station begins operation.  Again, no authorization is required from the FCC, but if the stations are not able to coordinate with one another, then they must wait until after 11:59:59 to commence post-transition operations.

In any case, once a station commences post-transition DTV operations consistent with their underlying construction permit, they will need to file a notification with the FCC, as well as a Form 302-DT covering license application to complete the process. 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on December 15, 2008 by David Oxenford

Congress Throws an Analog Lifeline While Telling FCC to Deal With the DTV Transition and Cancel Meeting, While New Administration Pushes for Phone Banks for Consumer Complaints

The digital television conversion end game is upon us, and everyone seems to be getting a little testy.  Seemingly, not everyone is convinced that the consumer education efforts have prepared the public for the transition, and thus Washington seems to be preparing for problems.  But, in a last minute attempt to solve some of the potential issues, both Congress and the new Administration have stepped into the breach to put pressure on broadcasters and the FCC to be prepared to deal with the February end date for analog TV.  Congress passed legislation authorizing the FCC to allow some television stations in each market to continue to operate in analog after the end of the transition to tell consumers who didn't make the switch what to do (an analog "life line service").  At the same time, Congress urged the FCC to mind the transition and not start off on new regulatory battles, causing the cancellation of this week's FCC meeting.  In this event-filled 10 days, the new Obama administration also stepped into the DTV transition, a potentially significant issue that will face the new administration less than a month after taking office, pushing broadcasters, cable companies and direct broadcast satellite companies to pay for and establish phone banks to provide assistance to consumers stranded by the transition.

The cancellation of the Commission's meeting was perhaps the strangest of these matters.  The FCC was prepared to hold a meeting later this week, with a full schedule of items to consider, including various items related, in one way or another, to the digital transition.  Included were a series of fines to broadcasters, consumer electronics stores, and others for not doing everything required by the rules to facilitate the digital transition.  The Commission was also planning to start the rulemaking process to authorize digital "fill-in" translators, i.e. low powered TV stations rebroadcasting a main station on other channels within the main station's service area to fill holes in digital service.  Plus, the FCC was to deal with the Chairman's proposals for a free wireless Internet service on channels being vacated by television stations as part of the transition.  Yet, Congressman Henry Waxman, the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Senator Rockefeller, the newly appointed Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee ( the committees with responsibility over the FCC) wrote a letter to the FCC saying that it should concentrate its efforts on the transition, and not take up issues on which the new administration may want a role (perhaps the wireless service).  After receiving the letter, the December meeting was canceled (the first time in memory that the FCC did not have a monthly meeting as seemingly required by Section 5 of the Communications Act). 

So what will the FCC concentrate on?  One thing will be the new Congressional permission given to the FCC to allow some television stations to continue to broadcast in analog after the transition end date, providing an analog life line to those customers who are thrown overboard.  Essentially, for a 30 day period after the end of the transition, these lifeline stations will be broadcasting nothing but messages that tell those that missed the message about the transition as to what they need to do to get with the digital program.  The Commission will need to make decisions about which stations can operate as these lifelines without causing interference to other digital stations, and what rules will govern their operations.  The bill requires that these rules be in place by January 15.

Congress has not been the only one pushing for more efforts to address any issues that may arise in the transition.  According to a report published by TVNewsday, Tom Wheeler, former head of CTIA (the cellular industry trade association), who is working on the Obama transition team, had a meeting with representatives of the broadcast, cable and consumer electronics industries and essentially told them that there should be call centers set up and financed by these industries to answer questions about the transition, including calls from those people who end up without service on February 18.  The message was apparently heard, as the NAB today announced that it plans to set up such a call center, as have several state broadcast associations.

The DTV transition is just two months away, and it's clear that the pressure is on broadcasters to make sure that it goes smoothly.   The political ramifications of widespread problems may be great - so broadcasters should do all that they can to assure the transition is as painless as possible.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on August 23, 2008 by David Oxenford

What to Do With TV Channels 5 and 6 - Proposals to Turn Them Over to Radio Services

The Digital Television conversion has allowed the FCC to reclaim significant portions of the TV spectrum for wireless and public safety uses - television channels above 51 will no longer be used for broadcast TV at the end of the analog to digital transition.  But, as part of the FCC's Diversity proceeding (see our post here), a proposal dealing with the other end of the TV spectrum is being considered - whether to remove Channels 5 and 6 from the television band and instead use these channels for FM radio.  These channels are adjacent to the lower end of the FM band.  Because of this adjacency, the existence of TV Channel 6 in a market can limit the use of the lowest end of the FM band (used for Noncommercial Educational stations) to avoid interference to the TV station.  Similarly, Channel 6's audio can be heard on many FM radio receivers, a fact that has recently been used by some LPTV operators to use their stations to deliver an audio service that can be received by FM radios (see our post on this subject).  In comments filed in the Diversity proceeding, parties have taken positions all across the spectrum - from television operators who have opposed using the channel for anything but television, to those suggesting that the channels be entirely cleared of television users and turned into a digital radio service.  Proposals also suggest using the band for LPFM operations, and even for clearing the AM band by assigning AM operators to this band to commence new digital operations.

In comments that our firm submitted on behalf of a group of noncommercial FM radio licensees who also rebroadcast their signals on a number of FM translator stations, we suggested that Channel 6 could provide a home for LPFM operations, instead of trying to squeeze those stations into the existing FM band.  There are currently proposals to squeeze more LPFM stations into the FM band by supplanting some FM translators (see our summary of some of those proposals here).  In these comments in the Diversity proceeding, we pointed out that, as there are currently radios on the market that receive 87.9, 87.7 and even 87.5, using these three channels for LPFM service would provide an immediate home to these stations, and far more opportunity for than LPFM would have in the already congested FM band.  These opportunities would exist even in most of the largest radio markets in the country, except in the handful of markets where a Channel 6 television station will continue to operate after the digital transition.  By adopting this proposal, the service that would be provided by FM translators would not be threatened. 

Another set of comments submitted by a group which includes a number of consulting engineers went even further, suggesting that all of Channels 5 and 6 be turned over to a radio service, that the service be operated in a digital mode, and that AM stations and LPFMs all be moved to these new channels.  The proposal is quite detailed, submitting a table of allotments for the relocation of the AM stations.  The proposal also sets out alternative channels for all current full-power television stations on Channels 5 and 6 where they could be moved to clear these two channels for radio operations.

On the other hand, a number of groups have opposed use of these channels for radio.  The opposition includes those stations who already are operating their digital stations on these channels, and organizations including the NAB and MSTV who represent broadcast television stations.  These groups argue that these two channels need to be retained as television channels not only for use by the television stations that have digital operations there, but also for new stations that can be allotted after the end of the digital transition, as well as for LPTV stations that are already operating there and ones that could be built in the future. 

Thus, the Commission will be faced with a choice between using these channels for more radio or more television.  So far, no party has argued that there is no need for this additional service given the multiple services that each TV and FM radio station can provide when operating digitally, nor have questions been raised as to what the addition of new channels (either radio or TV) will do for revenues of existing stations already facing unprecedented competition from other forms of new media.  Of course, the competition will come digitally in any event through other means of wireless delivery, so more competition is inevitable whether or not these channels are used for new broadcast services.  The use of these channels for more broadcasting will only hasten the inevitable increase in competition that broadcasters will face.   At the same time, the addition of all these channels will show, once again, that the incredible competition that exists to broadcasters and demonstrate that government regulation is not necessary to ensure that local service will be provided as, if the marketplace demands it, it will be provided (see our post here). 

Reply Comments on these important issues are due on August 29.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,