VHF stations and DTV issues

Subscribe to VHF stations and DTV issues

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the last week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

  • A list of “ex parte” presentations made to the FCC (disclosures of presentations made to FCC decision makers outside of

…

The FCC’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on annual regulatory fees was published in the Federal Register this week, setting the comment date in that proceeding as November 22, with reply comments due December 23. As we wrote when the FCC’s fee decision for 2019 fees was released, this Further Notice is…

The FCC has finalized its regulatory fees for this year, though they have not announced the actual filing date, other than to say that the fees will be paid during a window to be announced sometime in September. In the Order announcing the new fees, in addition to setting the fees (which represent an increase for broadcasters of approximately 3.5% over past years), the FCC addressed several issues that it had raised in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the fees, about which we wrote here.  The issues for broadcasters were few, and some of the most significant changes will not take place until the future.

One of the simple issues that was addressed was the difference between the fees for UHF and VHF television stations. Regulatory fees have always reflected the analog preference of VHF stations over UHF, as those stations had larger coverage and were, generally, more profitable. In the digital world, it is exactly the reverse, as UHF stations are far better at transmitting a digital signal.  Yet the fees still reflect the old reality – and VHF stations, as set forth below, pay twice as much as UHF stations. The FCC finally recognized that this was not right, and has decided to set regulatory fees at the same level for both VHF and UHF stations. But, because of certain procedural requirements, the new fees will not take effect until next year. So, this year, VHF stations will again continue to pay a disproportionately high fee.

The Commission also promised to review other fees in the future. Part of the way that fees are set is based on the percentage of the FCC’s resources that are devoted to the regulatory activities associated with a particular communications industry service, as reflected by the employees in the FCC Bureau most directly in charge of regulating the service . One of the reasons for the increase in the fees for broadcasters is because the FCC decided that the fees previously associated with the International Bureau, whose services working on International treaties and clearances, benefit all different kinds of communications entities regulated by other FCC Bureaus, should be largely reallocated to those other Bureaus for purposes of counting the fees paid by the communications services regulated by those other Bureaus.  At least part of the International Bureau fees were allocated to the Media Bureau which regulates broadcasters. In fact, this reallocation will increase fees to an even greater extent over time, but the FCC capped the rate of increase for fees for this year, to avoid “sticker shock” to the various services whose fees will increase.Continue Reading FCC Announces Regulatory Fees to be Paid in September – Specific Filing Dates to Be Announced Soon

The debate over repurposing some of the television spectrum for wireless broadband have been raging over the normally quiet Washington summer, as issues as diverse as the budget negotiations, the tenth anniversary of 9-11 and international treaties all play their part in the discussions.  Whatever changes are made could have a profound impact on TV broadcasters nationwide, not just those in the congested metropolitan markets where everyone acknowledges that any spectrum crunch that may exist would be most acute.  This week, Congressman John Dingell, long one of the most influential Congressmen on telecommunications issues, complained that the FCC was deliberately withholding details of its plans for spectrum allocation – plans that the National Association of Broadcasters have challenged as unworkable as they would doom over-the-air television in many markets, especially those near the Canadian border.  With all the issues swirling around the spectrum reallocation debate, the realistic timing of any reallocation of the spectrum and the real impact on the free over-the-air television broadcast industry are becoming major issues being considered in Washington.

The FCC has been pursuing the idea of repurposing some of the television spectrum for wireless broadband use since well before the Broadband Report was issued last year.  As we summarized in our review of the Broadband Report, the FCC suggested that as much as 120 MHz of television spectrum could be reallocated from TV to wireless broadband uses.  The FCC and the consumer electronics and wireless industries have contended that there is a looming spectrum crunch, particularly in major markets, as smart phones, tablets and other connected devices become a bigger part of the lives of many consumers in serving not only their entertainment needs, but also providing information and business services.  The FCC’s Broadband Report thought that as much as 500 MHz of spectrum would eventually be needed, and that 120 MHz could come from the television spectrum, which proponents feel has been underutilized by broadcasters since the digital television transition in 2009.  Proponents of the reallocation contend most consumers get their TV service not over the air, but from cable or satellite providers, so the need for spectrum dedicated to broadcast television is far less than it was 70 years ago when the television service was first popularized.  Broadcasters, of course disagree with that assessment, contending that the digital transition is still very new, and that uses of the digital spectrum – including a mobile DTV service and multicast channels – are just developing.  Moreover, TV broadcasters have argued that their digital offerings, when combined with Internet service, are providing an option to many to "cut the cord" from pay TV options, leading to more over-the-air viewing.  In recent weeks, as detailed below, the National Association of Broadcasters has also been contending that the proposed reallocation would irreparably damage the over-the-air television industry, especially in markets in the Northeast and near the Canadian border where, in some markets, the reallocation would be impossible without ending most or all over-the-air television service.  The radically different pictures painted by the participants in this debate have led to some of the recent charges that the FCC is being less than forthcoming about the manner in which this transition would occur and the impact that it would have on broadcast TV. Continue Reading The Debate Continues Over Using TV Spectrum for Wireless Broadband – Incentive Auctions, International Considerations, Deficit Reduction, and Public Safety All Play a Role

The FCC has granted a one week extension for reply comments in the proceeding looking to take many of the preliminary steps toward incentive auctions by which the FCC would reclaim parts of television spectrum for use by wireless broadband companies.  Comments are now due on April 25.  We wrote about the many issues in this…

The FCC’s auction of new VHF TV channels in New Jersey and Delaware (about which we have written many times including here) has resulted in only three qualified bidders.  Despite this lack of interest in these VHF channels, the FCC seems to be looking at VHF as a way to facilitate its announced plans for the clearing of significant portions of the television spectrum for wireless broadband use.  The Commission this week set the comment date – March 18, 2011 – on ways to overcome the issues that have been posed to TV stations that have remained in VHF channels after the digital transition.  In the same proceeding, the FCC also seeks comments on allowing TV stations to share the same 6 MHz channel, with both stations retaining their cable and satellite must-carry rights.  That same proceeding implies that we may well have seen the last new over-the-air television stations.  This crucial proceeding on the future of the television band requires careful attention by all parties who may be affected by the many proposals contained in this relatively compact Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

The first part of the FCC’s proposal (about which we previously wrote here), is to look at ways to get some of the television stations to give up their current channel to allow the FCC to use it for broadband, and having that station share another station’s channel to continue to provide its program service on what is the equivalent of a digital subchannel.  The proposal to encourage multiple TV stations to share the same 6 MHz channel raises many issues.  First, the FCC recognizes that the proposal may result in some television stations giving up their ability to broadcast in High Definition (one of the principal reasons for the initial transition to digital), but suggests that stations sharing the same channel could work out "dynamic arrangements" to allow sharing the spectrum flexibly, increasing the portion digital bandwidth allocated to one station when it has programming that would benefit from higher definition, while switching some of the bandwidth allocation to the other station at other times. 

While the Commission assumes that each station will continue to exist as an independent station even when sharing a channel with another station, many of its questions in this proceeding seem to signal uncertainty about this conclusion.  Issues on which the Commission seeks comment include:

  • What effect will channel sharing have on the deployment of HD programming and mobile television?  The Commission does not ask about 3-D television, which some broadcasters have begun to experiment with, and might be worth a comment if there are those who expect that to be part of the television future that could be affected by channel sharing arrangements.
  • In channel sharing, would each station be able to maintain a Standard Definition signal at all times?
  • The Commission assumes that each station sharing a single channel (and thus a single transmission facility) would retain a separate license, and be individually responsible for FCC-rule compliance (e.g. EAS, indecency, children’s television, political broadcasting, etc).  How would responsibility over the technical compliance be apportioned?
  • Should commercial and non-commercial stations be allowed to share the same channel?  Could commercial stations share channels that have, to this point, been reserved for noncommercial educational uses?
  • Will there be a loss in service to the public from such combinations?  Will there be television "white" and "gray" areas created, i.e. areas where there will be no over-the-air television service or only a single service?
  • Should cable and satellite service be included when evaluating questions of loss of service?
  • What impact should channel sharing have on other FCC rules, like the media ownership rules?

Perhaps the biggest issue with channel sharing is the cable and satellite carriage issue, which raised a number of issues for the Commission.  The issues, summarized below, also demonstrate the Commission’s tentativeness in its conclusion that two stations sharing the same channel are really independent stations.Continue Reading While Few Vie for New VHF TV Stations in NJ and Delaware, FCC Sets Comment Date on Improving VHF Digital Reception and TV Channel Sharing With Must Carry Rights As Ways to Help Clear TV Band for Broadband Users

With the end of the DTV transition, the future use of TV channels 5 and 6, about which we have written before, is now back before the Commission in connection with an FCC filing by the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, whose "radio rescue petition" was recently placed on a public notice opening a 30 day public comment period.   The FCC already has before it comments filed in its Diversity proceeding suggesting that these channels be reallocated for radio use, as Channel 6 is immediately adjacent to the lower end of the FM band, and the sound from many analog channel 6 TV stations could be heard on FM receivers.  While this petition has been opposed by certain TV interests, it is interesting to note that many television operators have been acknowledging that VHF channels, which had been the preferred channels for analog operations, may not be as advantageous for digital use, especially in urban areas, and may be particularly problematic for use with mobile digital television systems which are about to be introduced.

 In an analog world, VHF channels (those between 2 and 13) were prized by broadcasters, as stations operating on those channels could operate at power levels significantly lower than UHF stations (saving electricity costs), and still cover greater areas.  Many broadcasters thought that these benefits, particularly the lower power costs, would carry over into the digital world, and opted to remain on VHF channels for their digital operations – in some case abandoning the UHF temporary transition channel on which they were operating digitally during the period when they were running both a digital and an analog station before the end of the transition, to return to their VHF channel for their final digital operation.  Right after the digital transition was complete and these stations had moved back to their old VHF channels for their digital operations, in several major markets, many broadcasters operating on VHF channels found that their digital operations had significant problems, as the power levels were insufficient to reach many over-the-air sets, particularly those using "rabbit ears" antennas in urban areas.  Continue Reading Will TV Channel 6 Be Used For Radio? – MMTC Petition Raises the Issue, Again