|
|
|
Graham Brock, Inc. |
|
Broadcast Technical Consultants |
| Vol. XVI, No. 2 |
R. Stuart Graham, Jr. |
| February 2009 |
Jefferson G. Brock |
|
To DTV or Not To DTV? That Is The Question |
|
There has been much discussion since our
last report regarding the delay of the final transition
to digital broadcasting and the cessation of analog full
power TV service. After Congress initially declined to
change the February 17, 2009 date, another attempt was
made; this time resulting in a four month delay. The new
date for the shut down of analog is June 12, 2009. This
revised date does not preclude the termination of analog
service sooner with FCC approval. In fact, a number of
stations have already ceased operating with analog
service, such as stations in Wilmington, North Carolina
and all stations in Hawaii. Some stations that had to
transition to digital on their analog channel have also
made the change. More than 681 stations planned to cease
analog operation on February 17, 2009.
The Commission issued a Public Notice outlining the new
deadline for stations to apprise the FCC of how their
full power TV stations intend to transition, if they
have not already done so. The Commission waived the 60
day notification requirement for those stations still
planning to cease analog operation on February 17, 2009.
These stations were required to notify the FCC no later
than February 9, 2009. However, the Public Notice
indicates that the Commission may not allow stations to
transition, if it feels that the termination of analog
operation of a station(s) before June 12, 2009 would not
be in the public interest. In fact, the FCC denied 123
of the transition applications.
Those stations that transition before June 12, 2009 may
only operate their pre-transition digital facilities. If
they wish to operate their post-transition digital
facilities, the Commission requires that they submit a
request for Special Temporary Authorization (“STA”).
Those stations that have already ceased analog operation
may request an STA to re-start the analog operation
until the June deadline. This extension also impacts the
proposed Analog Nightlight proposal, which is no longer
a factor due to the new June date. When budgeting was
undertaken for 2009, continued analog operation was not
expected by broadcasters past February 17, 2009, and it
is not known what the costs for continued operation of
two transmission plants, analog and digital, will be for
the individual stations, or whether they will
individually or collectively consider seeking federal
help with these added costs. |
|
AM Modeling of Directional Systems in Effect |
|
The FCC has issued the final notice about the Method
of Moments proof process for AM directionals. With
certain restrictions, this new proof process may
help AM stations remain within their FCC license
parameters and save considerable expenses when
stations need full or partial proofs. Having
attended seminars and participated in the rule
making process, we are ready to assist stations in
implementing MoM proofs. |
|
No STL License Equals Big Money Problem |
|
An LPFM station was recently visited by the
Commission’s regional staff and was found to be
operating a microwave station in the 944 MHz -
952 MHz band without a license. Since the
licensee of the station could not produce a
license for the STL system, the FCC issued a
Notice of Apparent Liability and a fine of
$10,000 for operating a microwave station
without a license. While it is not known whether
the station was interfering with other users in
the area, it is not beyond the realm of
possibility. Similar fines have been levied on
stations with licensed STL systems that were
being operated from alternate locations, caused
by main studio changes. Additionally, STL
authorizations need to be updated if the main
station associated with the STL has made changes
causing a reorientation of the STL transmit
antenna or changes to other associated
equipment.
|
|
RF Exposure Issues |
| In a renewal
application, a station licensee indicated there were
several “hot spots” around the station’s transmitter
site. They further noted that these issues would be
addressed and an amendment to the renewal
application would be submitted. Some time later, no
amendment had been submitted, and the station was
inspected. The hot spots were confirmed by the FCC
Inspector, and now the licensee is in hot water.
While it is always a good policy to follow up with
an amendment for a compliance matter, RF exposure
continues to be an important issue. The continuing
changes to stations can cause issues which will have
to be addressed by all licensees at a shared tower
site (or tower farm). Don’t be caught off guard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
