FCC Adopts Rule Changes; Seeks Comments On Others

[dhett]

The FCC releases Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-217A1.pdf

The FCC has adopted several rules changes that are intended to promote diversity in broadcast ownership, and are considering others, and asking for comments. Not everyone agrees that the new rules go far enough to promote diversity. Where additional flexibility is granted to small businesses, some wanted that flexibility to be limited to "Socially Disadvantaged Businesses" (read: woman- and minority-owned).

TV-related highlights are below.

Changes adopted:

• 73.2090 - Ban on discrimination in broadcast transactions (see rule change on p. 41; discussion on pp. 18-19, sec. 40-42)
• 73.3555 - Change in attribution of interest in cross-ownership for small businesses (pp. 41-42; pp. 10-16, sec. 17-34)
• 73.3598 - Changes to certain construction permit expirations for small businesses (p. 42; pp. 7-10, sec. 10-16)
• 73.5008 - Change in attribution of interest in new entrant bidding credits for small businesses (pp: 42-43; pp. 10-16, sec. 17-34)

Proposed changes under consideration:

• Must-carry for Class A Television Stations (See discussion, p. 35, sec. 99)
• Re-allocation of TV channels 5 and 6 for FM service (p. 35, sec. 100)

The FCC is seeking comments on the proposed changes - see pp. 36-38, sec. 104-107 for instructions.

 

[JayR]

Proposed changes under consideration:

• Must-carry for Class A Television Stations...

I'm so-so with regards to Class A stations. There are some which should be given "must-carry"; on the other hand, there are those which are a complete waste of space.

 

[dhett]

That's a matter of taste - not something I would want the gov't determining.

 

[YEKIMI]

Yeah, the FCC's idea of diversity under this regime is: Are you a rich, white billionaire or just a rich, white multi-millionaire?

 

[Mediafrog+]

• Re-allocation of TV channels 5 and 6 for FM service (p. 35, sec. 100)

Nice to see some consideration of this. The low-band V's need to be allocated to other services. The FCC blew it by including channels 2-6 in the digital core.

 

[w9wi]

• Re-allocation of TV channels 5 and 6 for FM service (p. 35, sec. 100)

Nice to see some consideration of this. The low-band V's need to be allocated to other services. The FCC blew it by including channels 2-6 in the digital core.

It's way too late to remove channels 2-6 from DTV service. Stations have already purchased low-band transmitters for their permanent DTV operations. A station in my market told the FCC their channel 5 transmitter should arrive this month or next. Remove channel 5 from DTV service, and either my local is stuck paying for a transmitter they can't use, or the manufacturer is stuck with a transmitter they can't sell.

The only way we'll see more spectrum allotted for FM down here is if they allot the entire low-band (2-6) on a secondary basis to TV. That way, the TV stations already assigned can stay put and the channels between them can be used for FM. (even better, for full-digital IBOC or Eureka. The interference problem goes away if there are no analogs to interfere with, and the coverage problem goes away because for the same reason you can run 100kw digital power. And you're going to have to have new receivers anyway since nobody's existing set tunes much below 88MHz.)

 

[Mediafrog+]

The only way we'll see more spectrum allotted for FM down here is if they allot the entire low-band (2-6) on a secondary basis to TV. That way, the TV stations already assigned can stay put and the channels between them can be used for FM.

That wouldn't be a bad idea, at least on a lengthy transitional basis.

But I'll restate some earlier comments of mine elsewhere on these boards: Once the dust settles from the DTV switchover, radio broadcasters, the FCC, and the listening public need to start a discussion on the technical future of radio, especially switching the FM band to full digital, and the eventual shutdown/migration of the AM band to new technologies. Could the low band V's be where those AM stations go? The big drawback would be the potential for heavy skywave interference when the band opens up (ask any ham how well 6 meters does on such occasions.) But I don't see AM surviving in the long term in its present form, so something needs to happen. We're of course talking 20-30 years into the future here.

Of course, all of this could be made irrelevant by parallel technological changes, such as a fully mobile internet with small, simple to operate receivers.