Published: TV Technology Issue: 7/3/97 "Transitional" Gear Could Ease DTV Bottom Line by - Joe Fedele WASHINGTON--The FCC's adoption of the new DTV allotment table provides broadcasters with several alternatives regarding the installation of transmission facilities that could help extend a station's limited capital resources. Because the FCC has shown its desire to remain flexible on issues such as tower location and effective radiated power (ERP) levels, broadcasters reluctant to jump head-first into the DTV arena may not have to break their budgets in order to get on the air. In its 6th Report and Order, the Commission states that it will "permit a broadcaster to locate its DTV facility at any site within a three-mile radius of the actual transmitter location, so long as the station would continue to serve its community of license." Unlike current rules for NTSC stations that specify grade A and B contours, the FCC appears to be interested in covering only the principle community of license in order for stations to comply with the minimum licensing requirements. The Commission has specified a minimum field strength level for each band, based on a F (50, 90) curve in dB above one uV/m (microvolts per meter). (see chart 1). ================================================================ Chart 1. Channels 2-6 Channels 7-13 Channels 14-69 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 28 dBu 36 dBu 41 dBu ================================================================ Joe Davis, a partner at the Fairfax, Va.-based engineering and consulting firm of Cavell, Mertz, & Perryman, notes that "in many cases only low-to-moderate power levels will be required to cover the principal community of license, he said. "But, the community of license may not necessarily be where the population center is, consequently they may have to look hard at their market to see what makes sense in their situation." The FCC is also permitting stations to operate their DTV stations at a site different from their existing NTSC operation, as long as the proposed DTV minimum spacing requirements are met and the station would continue to serve its community of license. Additionally, both a maximum and minimum ERP level is specified. This affords broadcasters the opportunity to transition into DTV at their own pace by starting with a minimum power level and then gradually increasing it when the time is right. Chart 2 shows the different power levels based on a station's geographic location. Chart 2. - FCC Mandated ERP Power Levels & Zones =============================================================================== Freq. Band Min. ERP (Kw) Max. ERP (Kw) Max. ERP Level (Kw) Zone I Zones II & III ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VHF Ch 2-6 1 10 45 VHF Ch 7-13 3.2 30 160 UHF Ch 14-59 50 1,000 1,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the purpose of channel assignment, the U.S. is divided into three zones, as noted in section 773.609 of the FCC Rules & Regulations. Zone I includes the Northeast US, extending south to the Virginia-North Carolina border and west to the Mississippi River. Zone II consists of the portion of the US not included in Zones I or II along with Puerto Rico, Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands and the Virgin Islands. Zone III is the Southeast US extending from the east coast of Georgia west to the Mexican border. =============================================================================== The issue of installing transmission systems that utilize the minimum power levels approved by the Commission could provide an alternative means of complying with the new rules. This may have a great impact on some stations building DTV facilities that wish to make a small investment up front to give them time to meet the cost of a full-powered facility. Gary Cavell, senior partner at Cavell, Mertz, & Perryman, says that given the fact that there will be a very limited number of receivers in use in the near term, some of their television and radio station clients are having a tough time coming to grips with the cost of installing a full-powered DTV site. "Giving them the option of installing a transitional system affords some the breathing room they need to comply with the FCC requirements and remain financially solvent", he said. The average full-powered UHF DTV licensee will spend about $2 million on a new transmitter and antenna system. The cost of a tower alone will easily run between one and two million dollars for structures of 1,000 feet or higher. But for a low-powered DTV station operating at an ERP level of 50 Kw, it will cost only about a $500,000 to get up and running. A station such as this, with its smaller transmission line and reduced antenna power handling requirements, will exhibit a much lower wind-loading effect (the stress factor induced by wind) to your tower. This could be good news for stations whose towers are now nearing the wind-loading limit. And, for those stations that are forced to look elsewhere for tower space, a low-powered DTV system may be more easily accommodated at someone else's tower due to the much lower wind-loading requirements. Another factor to be considered is that transitional, low-powered DTV antennas may also be legally mounted lower on the tower than their existing NTSC counterparts and still be compliant with FCC rules. This further improves a station's chances of finding an alternate tower site that meets their licensing requirements. The cost of the tower rental should also be far lower than the cost of investing in a new one. On the transmitter side, a typical 50 Kw ERP system would likely require the use of only a 5 Kw transmitter, while a full-powered station might use 60 kilowatts. Again, the cost savings of installing a single $150,000 low-powered transmitter versus a $500,000 plus full-powered unit will go a long way in spreading out your capital expenses. And since most stations install a second transmitter as a backup, the short-term savings will run close to $1 million. A station could also expect to budget about $250,000 for a typical full-powered TV antenna while a comparable low-powered version runs about $70,000. Additional short-term savings may be derived from the lower cost of transmission line, elbows, flanges and other hardware. While full-powered stations may spend about $100 per linear foot on 16-inch waveguide, a low-powered system can utilize two-inch flex cable costing considerably less than half as much. This combination of minimum power levels and some flexibility in transmitter site location allows broadcasters to erect transitional DTV stations that meet a much more modest budget. This will provide broadcasters with several advantages: * Minimal initial capital investment, * Stretch capital investments over a longer period of time, * Allow time for audience to build, * Allow time for consumer reaction to FCC ruling, * Give broadcaster working experience in DTV for more effective long-term planning, * Allows equipment manufacturers more time to reduce pricing and improve prototypes. Once a broadcaster has decided to upgrade their facility to a full-powered operation, this transitional DTV equipment could be used as an emergency backup. While the FCC has not yet reviewed the possibility of allowing dual transmitter sites located at different locations, they appear to be listening to broadcasters for reasonable arguments. The Commission has stated that it "intends to conduct a review of DTV every two years until the cessation of NTSC service" to allow it "an opportunity to reassess the decisions" and to "permit careful monitoring of the development of digital television." This has led some to believe that investing in a full- or even a low-powered DTV facility before the first FCC review period (in April, 1999) may be premature. Diane Sutter, owner of KTAB-TV in Abilene, Texas, believes that DTV is an "ill conceived plan that will be poorly executed," he said. "They can legislate deadlines all they want but they can't legislate consumer acceptance." She points out that "no one has ever asked the consumer what they want. We are consumer-driven and no one has done any serious studies to see if the consumer even wants this," she adds. Anticipating a consumer backlash against the high cost of DTV sets and set-top boxes, Sutter predicts that "in time I think they (the FCC) are going to do some serious back peddling."