Published: TV Technology magazine Issue: 4 May 98 by Joe Fedele Hospitals May Wield Veto Power Over DTV FCC Withholds Construction Permits While Spectrum Use Issue is Sorted Out by Joe Fedele WASHINGTON In an apparent case of the tail wagging the dog, the FCC slammed on the brakes this spring by holding back approv- als on DTV-related construction permits and Special Temporary Authority (STA) applications. This comes in the wake of an interference incident in February when biomedical devices in several health care facilities malfunctioned due to the commencement of DTV transmissions at the WFAA-DT television station in Dallas. At press time the FCC was hard at work with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in writing a “conditional statement” that is expected to be attached to all DTV-related applications. The statement would require that broadcast- ers coordinate the start of their DTV operations with local health care facilities to prevent a repetition of the Dallas incident. As of this writing all DTV permit applications were on hold. This, in stark contrast to the hard push from Congress and the FCC to move the DTV transition as quickly as possible, has startled many broadcasters. CRITICAL MOVE Keith Larson, assistant bureau chief of the FCC’s Mass Media Bureau stated that “the DTV transition is at a very critical point in time. We don’t want to stop the process or do anything to slow it down.” But given the “life critical” circumstances and potential for harm to patients, the FCC agreed to hold back any further construction permits until certain interference issues are resolved. In late March the FCC and FDA released a joint statement warning that “certain medical telemetry devices, such as cardiac monitors, are allowed to use TV broadcast channels that are unoccupied in their geographic area” and that “the digital signal may interfere with medical telemetry systems.” The result was a freeze on DTV applications and a requirement that broadcasters coordinate with all health care fa- cilities in their broadcast area. As part of the coordination effort, the statement continued, “the FDA will work with medical device manufacturers to assure that medical devices are adequately labeled to alert users about the need to take steps to avoid interference.” FREEZE OUT One station effected by the freeze was KHOU-TV in Houston, Texas. David Carr, director of engineering for the sta- tion, recalled how the station’s application for an STA was held up by the commission as a result of the Dallas inci- dent. “We already had the authority to broadcast our DTV signal but needed to make changes to our tower configuration,” he said. So KHOU-TV applied for an STA that would temporarily allow it to operate lower on the tower and at re- duced power until the station’s technical issues were resolved. But the commission would not authorize the change. Like most broadcasters, Dane Ericksen, a professional engineer with Hammett and Edison, a San Francisco-based consulting firm and the chairman of the Society of Broadcast Engineers FCC Liaison Committee, strongly opposed the commission’s decision to allow unlicensed biomedical devices to operate on broadcast channels. Noting that the SBE worked hard to prevent the FCC from allowing unlicensed users from operating on the broadcast band, Ericksen pointed out the precedent-setting implications of allowing noncoordinated users the right to retard the DTV transition process. The key word here is “unlicenses,” he added. “Will the hospitals (the users of unlicensed transmitting devices) now dictate the use of DTV channels [to broadcast licensees]? “Given the unfortunate situation [in Dallas] I think that the Mass Media Bureau is doing the best they can [in lieu of] the life-safety issue,” he continued. “But what happens if [broadcast licensees] miss one [health care facility in the co- ordination process]? And will that constitute a violation of a station’s construction permit? How do you come up with a list of users?” Also at issue are the potential legal ramifications if another interference incident were to result in physical harm or even death to a patient. The question of litigation against DTV licensees is on the minds of many. One broadcaster jokingly noted that some see this as “a full employment act for lawyers.” Raymond Benedict, director of Spectrum Engineering and Regulatory Compliance for CBS Television in Washing- ton, D.C., asked, “what happens if [the biomedical device operators] refuse to move [their operations to another un- used channel]?” Benedict echoed the feelings of some who fear that allowing health care providers to have any sort of veto power over the commencement of a station’s DTV operations is asking for trouble. “And why is the burden on us?” ques- tioned Ericksen, who sees broadcasters on the defensive end of a sticky regulatory ordeal. Acknowledging broadcasters’ many concerns and questions, Larson agreed that while the legal wording of the documents will be quickly put to rest, the implications of the entire matter could be long-lasting.