Published: TV Technology magazine Issue: 18 May 98 by Joe Fedele LPTV Stations Seek Primary Status Despite Dissension in Ranks, LPTV Advocates Hope to Rework FCC Guidelines by Joe Fedele WASHINGTON Ask TV station owners what they think about the implementation of DTV and they will likely tell you it’s an expense they would rather not deal with. Most stations, however, are at least hopeful that the additional digital channel alloca- tion they received could lead to eventual growth for their station and the industry. Ask the same question to low-power TV (LPTV) station owners and the reaction is something more akin to watching a Steven King movie. LPTV stations have watched in horror as the FCC has consistently reaffirmed its official posi- tion on LPTV’s license status: Only full-powered TV stations deserve “primary status” among television licensees. As “secondary status” licensees, LPTV stations face eviction from the broadcast band while their full-powered NTSC brethren gobble up what remains of the spectrum for the transition to DTV. This, in conjunction with two other rulings from the FCC that effectively reduced the total spectrum available for use by broadcasters, has threatened the very ex- istence of many LPTV stations. HANGING IN THERE But LPTV owners are not giving up without a fight. In late September of last year, the Community Broadcasters As- sociation (CBA) filed a petition for a rule change with the FCC that, if approved in its entirety, would grant low-power stations primary status (see sidebar titled “CBA Proposes Class A Classification for LPTVs”). The petition was later revised and resubmitted to the FCC on Mar. 18 after a Cincinnati, Ohio, LPTV station was displaced by full-power station WLWT-DT on Channel 35. During this year’s NAB convention in April, LPTV owners were thrilled to hear FCC Chairman William Kennard’s statements that he was “very interested” in helping low-power stations. On April 21 the FCC formerly placed a petition out for comment that may revise the LPTV’s status. Comments to the petition are due May 22 with reply comments due June 8. Hossein Hashemzadeh, an LPTV engineering supervisor for the FCC’s Mass Media Bureau, said that if the commis- sion approved the CBA request it would “not mean [LPTVs] would get Part 73 status like full-powered TV stations.” “But it will afford them some protection, even from one another. Because LPTVs are classified as a ‘secondary serv- ice’ they are required to accept any interference from other TV stations — full or low power — and have no recourse or appeal for protection.” Hashemzadeh also pointed out that not every LPTV station would qualify as a “Class A” station and that a number of criteria must be met before the station is accepted as such by the commission (see sidebar). GOING CLASS A Now, in a frantic attempt to “assure the long-term future” of LPTV stations, the CBA’s petition requested the crea- tion of a new Class A-type television license. The CBA proposal calls for Class A stations to be regulated under Part 73 of the FCC television licensee rules with maximum Effective Radiated Power (ERP) levels of up to 500 kW. Class A stations would be protected from interference in their Grade B service contours from other LPTV stations, but on a first-come, first-serve basis. The CBA proposal goes on to request stations be awarded DTV assignments at any time provided that “such conver- sion would not cause any more interference to any other station authorized under Part 73 prior to the date of the con- version application than was caused by [its] NTSC operations.” Finally, a minimum field strength contour table, based on an F(50,90) propagation model, would be established for LPTV stations operating new DTV allocations. These minimum field strength levels ensure that the principal commu- nity of license received a sufficient signal for good local reception. But not all LPTV licensees agreed with the CBA petition or the FCC’s DTV plans. Disputes on the matter have ap- peared bitter at times with some low-power respondents even attacking CBA’s credibility. In reply comments to the CBA proposal, Washington County Television (WCT), the owners of two LPTV stations in Oklahoma, as well as five other low-power licensees, challenged CBA’s contention as being “the trade association of the nation’s LPTV stations. More properly, it is a trade organization, not the trade association for LPTV stations,” states WCT. “With CBA’s knowledge of only 350 to 400 stations” the reply went on, WCT suggests the commission “refrain from using [CBA’s] numbers as the only ‘operating LPTV stations.” WCT went on to state that “no low-power station should be forced out of business” to accommodate DTV and that “the marketplace is the appropriate regulator for digital television.” WCT also urged the commission to “terminate is- suing automatic second channels to full-power broadcasters, instead treating DTV as an experimental service until the marketplace has made its preference known.” IN AGREEMENT But both CBA and WCT were in agreement on several key issues including the postponement of spectrum realloca- tion, the migration of LPTV stations to DTV, and numerous technical issues such as increases in power levels, restric- tions on UHF taboo channels and “advanced techniques for avoiding or demonstrating no interference.” But while LPTV advocates press hard for more favorable terms from the FCC, there are some that see the CBA peti- tion as wishful thinking. “I don’t think they have a chance,” remarked George Harter, president of Technical Services for Hardin & Associates, a broadcast and wireless communications consulting and engineering firm. “I would be amazed if the FCC relented and gave them everything they wanted,” he added. Harter applauds CBA’s attempt to sway the FCC. His firsthand experience in working with LPTV stations — trying to help them maintain a presence on the broadcast band — makes him sympathetic to their cause. He cited a study his company performed for 12 low-power stations in the Virginia Beach area. “Eleven of the 12 will be displaced by DTV and only one will stay on the air without any disruption,” he found. With the CBA proposal now officially on the FCC agenda, many are hopeful that some, if not all, the requests may make it into the rule book. But, if the rules stay as they are, noted Harter, “LPTV licensees are going to find a very bleak picture when they try to find an open channel to migrate to” should they be displaced by DTV.