KLDT 54 Construction Permit to Channel 39

[LibertyNT]

KLDT 54 Dallas has a construction permit to move to channel 39. The FCC map shows it being a full blown DTV signal like Fox 4 or NBC 5
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=KLDT

http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=DT1250307.html

 

[eskipper411]

Oooook, they did this on June 12.

 

[dhett]

Welcome to the wacky and expensive world of the DTV transition.

KLDT - which, by regulation, should be identifying as channel 55, their analog channel - was assigned an out-of-core digital channel, 54, meaning they had to find another channel on which to operate post-transition. They entered into a Negotiated Channel Agreement with KXTX 39/RF40 to use channel 39, but with conditions: they had to co-locate with KXTX in order to minimize adjacent channel interference, or they had to accept stringent measures to prevent interference. Because KXTX kept their analog signal on ch 39 right up until June 12, KLDT was required to broadcast post-transition on ch 39 from temporary alternate facilities at lower power and with the stringent measures until the KXTX analog facilities could be dismantled and removed from the tower. Complicating matters was Johnson Broadcasting's bankruptcy, which hampered their ability to secure financing to do all this. Their construction loan agreement with the firm handling the construction was only authorized on Sept 3.

Consequently, the firm that was hired has not yet completed the bidding process but expects to do that next week. After that, the transmitter is expected to require 4 months for delivery and then another 6 weeks for the installation and testing process. Don't expect to see the full-blown KLDT signal for another 6 months - and that's if nothing goes wrong. Fortunately for Johnson, or its successor, the construction agreement was fixed-price, so cost overruns shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Gridlock Joe]

KLDT - which, by regulation, should be identifying as channel 55, their analog channel

KLDT went digital when they moved to 54 in order to vacate channel 55 for MediaFlo. So when they moved to 39, their pre-transition channel was 54, and they can use 54 instead of 55 for their PSIP.

 

[dhett]

KLDT - which, by regulation, should be identifying as channel 55, their analog channel

KLDT went digital when they moved to 54 in order to vacate channel 55 for MediaFlo. So when they moved to 39, their pre-transition channel was 54, and they can use 54 instead of 55 for their PSIP.

Everything you've written agrees with my understanding, except for the last clause. Unless you found something in the FCC regs that I've overlooked, there's no provision for changing the PSIP identification, regardless of pre-transition or post-transition. IOW, their pre-transition PSIP should have also identified as channel 55. MediaFLO had nothing to do with it; it's just a virtual channel. KLDT could have operated in digital on ch 54 and in analog on ch 55 right up until June 12, but had financial incentives for dropping the analog early, and the FCC allowed it in order to free up the channel for MediaFLO.

Having said all that, it's nothing more than a point of procedure, and the FCC just happens to choose to look the other way. No children will die, no babies will starve, and it doesn't change my life one iota.

 

[arnoldevns]

I'll further confuse the issue I'm sure.. but I believe stations can choose to ID based on either their analog or digital channel number. KCEN in Temple was analog channel 6. When it started to broadcast digitally on channel 9 it changed its entire identity to channel 9. The PSIP is channel 9.

KLDT is a little different. It was analog 55. It moved to digital 54 and started to ID that way. When the final move to digital 39 took place, it kept the 54 identity.

All of that appears to fall within FCC guidelines. I think the FCC's main concern is to keep stations from using a PSIP for a channel number it had never been associated with on the broadcast band.

I asked about this on a different board. The new Fox affiliate in San Diego was on analog channel 69. It's on digital channel 19. It created an on-air marketing name based on its cable channel, Fox 5. I wondered it if would be allowed to use a PSIP of 5.1, etc. The answer is no. Even though they call themselves Fox 5, their PSIP is 69.1.

 

[w9wi]

I'll further confuse the issue I'm sure.. but I believe stations can choose to ID based on either their analog or digital channel number. KCEN in Temple was analog channel 6. When it started to broadcast digitally on channel 9 it changed its entire identity to channel 9. The PSIP is channel 9.

KLDT is a little different. It was analog 55. It moved to digital 54 and started to ID that way. When the final move to digital 39 took place, it kept the 54 identity.

All of that appears to fall within FCC guidelines. I think the FCC's main concern is to keep stations from using a PSIP for a channel number it had never been associated with on the broadcast band.

I asked about this on a different board. The new Fox affiliate in San Diego was on analog channel 69. It's on digital channel 19. It created an on-air marketing name based on its cable channel, Fox 5. I wondered it if would be allowed to use a PSIP of 5.1, etc. The answer is no. Even though they call themselves Fox 5, their PSIP is 69.1.

What KCEN is doing is not technically legal.

The ATSC standard generally requires a station that once had an analog signal to use, as its major virtual channel, its old analog channel number. Of course, KCEN once had an analog signal on channel 6, so the standard requires it to use major virtual channel 6. The ATSC standard is incorporated by reference into the FCC regulations, so this virtual channel assignment requirement has the force of the regulations.

That said, as you mention the point of this regulation is to ensure major virtual channels are unique within a market. Having two stations in the Waco market using major virtual channel 9 would cause issues for many viewers and both stations. It appears the Commission is not in a hurry to enforce this requirement.

This could potentially become a problem for KCEN if a new digital LPTV is authorized on channel 6 in the market. (quite possible, as several hundred if not thousand LPDTV applications were filed in a recent window for rural operations and another window is expected shortly for urban LPDTVs) Such a LPDTV, if authorized "in a vacuum", would be required by the regulations to use major virtual channel 6, since they never had an analog signal.

But they can't use virtual channel 6, because another station in the market used to be on analog channel 6 and is supposed to be using major virtual channel 6. In this case, the standards require the LPTV to use the other station's digital RF channel. Of course, that other station is KCEN and their digital RF channel is 9.

In my experience, most DTV receivers, when they find two stations on different RF channels using the same virtual channel, will receive both stations. There would be two channel 9's. The one on the lower RF frequency -- the new low-power station -- would come in first; i.e., if you punched in "09" on your remote, you'd get the LP station. You'd then have to hit channel-up to get KCEN.

I might imagine if that happened, KCEN would select the correct virtual channel in a hurry.

(or pay off the LPTV to use virtual channel 6...)

_________________________________________________

I suppose KLDT's use of virtual channel 54 is much less likely to cause issues. There's never been a station on RF 54 in the Dallas market, either analog or digital, and there can't be one now, so *nobody* can rightfully use virtual channel 54. KLDT's technically incorrect use can't cause a conflict. It's also very unlikely there would be a battle over use of that number -- unlikely anyone else would *want* to use virtual channel 54. The FCC will probably ignore KLDT's technical violation.

 

[JHBrandt]

Oooook, they did this on June 12.

The confusion comes from the fact that the FCC's TV query has been woefully out-of-date all year. The query still shows KLDT licensed on channel 54, with a CP and two STA applications for channel 39. From the query it's impossible to tell what channel KLDT is broadcasting on or what power level they're using.

The problems with the TV query aren't limited to KLDT. KXII and KWTX are still "licensed" to their pre-transition channels, according to the query - despite the fact that they both converted before 2/17! And KTVT and KTXA are a complete mess.

I'm guessing that the DTV transition has created a huge workload for the FCC this year, and keeping the TV query up to date probably isn't their highest priority.

 

[w9wi]

The confusion comes from the fact that the FCC's TV query has been woefully out-of-date all year. The query still shows KLDT licensed on channel 54, with a CP and two STA applications for channel 39. From the query it's impossible to tell what channel KLDT is broadcasting on or what power level they're using.

The problems with the TV query aren't limited to KLDT. KXII and KWTX are still "licensed" to their pre-transition channels, according to the query - despite the fact that they both converted before 2/17! And KTVT and KTXA are a complete mess.

I'm guessing that the DTV transition has created a huge workload for the FCC this year, and keeping the TV query up to date probably isn't their highest priority.

It can be a bit difficult to tell, but I don't think it's out of date, at least not in KLDT's case.

KLDT does not yet have a license-to-cover for the move to channel 39. They do (as you note) hold a construction permit for that channel. They may commence "program test" operation upon notification to the Commission; if you're seeing them on the air on channel 39, they presumably have done so. As I understand, they can operate with Program Test Authority indefinitely, as long as: they've filed for the license; the Commission hasn't told them to stop; and they haven't yet received the license-to-cover. (which would make PTA moot)

Can't say I'm entirely sure why the FCC hasn't labeled their channel 54 facility as an "archive record" yet. But that seems to be their general procedure.

My guess... Consider KDFW. They're licensed for 857kw, but they've received a permit to increase to 1000kw. Imagine that, when they "turn up the wick" and increase to 1000kw, the FCC begins to get massive interference complaints from, say, KDFI. After going through all the engineering work, they finally conclude that due to some unforeseen circumstance, clearing up the interference would require KDFW install a different directional antenna. KDFW decides the power increase isn't worth the cost, decides to abandon the power increase permit.

The CP is canceled (or at least, expires) and KDFW reverts to their licensed 857kw facility.

I think that procedure makes sense.
_________________________________________________
KXII and KWTX both have permits to increase digital power on their new channels. I don't think either one will seek a license-to-cover until they complete the power increase. (I don't think they'll file for a license-to-cover on their original, lower-powered facilities) (actually, it appears KXII has already done so -- has filed for a license-to-cover for their 36kw facility -- but the FCC hasn't yet acted on that application. See https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.hts?context=25&appn=101288668&formid=2&fac_num=35954.)
_________________________________________________
KTVT looks a bit messy but really makes sense. The LIC record is their pre-transition channel 19 operation. The CP is of course for their post-transition move to channel 11. They'll probably never file a license-to-cover for that one. The first APP record (APP-DS) is for Special Temporary Authority to return to channel 19 at 750kw. (KTXA's post-transition facility. Presumably they simply connected a second output of the KTVT ASI DA to the KTXA transmitter.)

The second APP record (APP-DR) is the application to change the post-transition channel assignment from 11 to 19. And the third APP record (APP-DT) is the one to actually move KTVT itself from 11 to 19. (the APP-DR record exists because it is possible to change an unused allotment, one that doesn't have any DT or DS records.)
_________________________________________________
For KTXA... The first record is for their pre-transition operation on channel 18. The second seems to be for an STA to reactivate that pre-transition operation, so KTVT could take over their transmitter.

The third is, again, an application to change channel, from 18 to 19. The CP MOD record is their permit to move from 18 to 19 (and note this is the same power/antenna height as KTVT's Special Temporary Authority for post-transition channel 19) and the fifth record was an application to increase power on channel 19 from 750kw to 1000kw. (note that this application has been become KTVT's)

The sixth record is similar to the third -- it's the application to move yet again, from 19 to 29, so KTVT can have channel 19. (presumably they'd be limited to 220kw if they stayed on channel 18?) And finally, the last record is to make that move to 29.

I'm sure this IS a big workload for the Commission staff. Add to that the FM translator window and the recent rural LPTV window and the NCE-FM window and, well, my job is stressful but I sure don't want theirs!


* but you won't find KTVT's original 1955 facilities in there, they only started the database sometime in the mid-80s IIRC.

Here is a test smiley: present only because I noticed they were back & wondered if they worked

 

[arnoldevns]

While I'm still not sure that either KCEN or KLDT is violating FCC rules, I'll stipulate that possibility for the sake of argument.

That said.. is it possible that somewhere in the huge mess of filings that both stations have been given a waiver of some sort to let them do what they're doing?

Also, regarding KLDT - I can assure you they are broadcasting on digital channel 39, regardless of how the FCC database might be interpreted.

 

[fybush]

While I'm still not sure that either KCEN or KLDT is violating FCC rules, I'll stipulate that possibility for the sake of argument.

That said.. is it possible that somewhere in the huge mess of filings that both stations have been given a waiver of some sort to let them do what they're doing?

Also, regarding KLDT - I can assure you they are broadcasting on digital channel 39, regardless of how the FCC database might be interpreted.

I sense that perhaps you didn't fully understand w9wi's excellent summary of the situation. Let me take a stab at it:

1. Yes, of course KLDT is broadcasting on RF 39. They *have* to be, because any legal authority that they had to operate on RF 54 went away at midnight on June 12, as it did for any station operating on or above RF 52.

For now, KLDT is broadcasting on RF 39 without a license to do so. But that doesn't make what they're doing illegal. They have a valid construction permit to operate on 39, and they have been granted program test authority to operate on 39, and they can operate with program test authority on 39 for as long as that construction permit remains valid. (July 22, 2011, to be precise.)

At some point between now and then, KLDT has to file for a "license to cover" on that construction permit, and only when they do that will the "licensed" status in the FCC database reflect the channel 39 operation. By remaining at construction permit status between now and then, KLDT buys itself some flexibility to more easily make changes if, for instance, the channel 39 operation is found to be causing interference to another station.

2. Nowhere in that huge mess of filings are there any formal written waivers allowing KLDT or KCEN to use major channels 54 or 9, respectively. And such operation is in violation of the ATSC digital television standard, which has the force of federal regulation because it's incorporated into the FCC rulebook.

Having said that, it's entirely possible that KLDT and KCEN have received verbal, informal waivers from the FCC to do what they're doing. There are plenty of stations that had analog facilities above channel 51 and switched to using their DTV RF channel as their major channel number. (Examples include the former WOAC 67 Canton OH, now WRLM "47", KAIL 53 Fresno CA, now "7", and WRNN 62 Kingston NY, now "48.") It's my understanding that the FCC has informally told those stations it's OK to do that, since there will be no conflict from future stations that might use those old analog channels. (Remember, the rules here say that, for instance, a new station on RF channel 4 in Dallas should use "35" as its major channel number, since KDFW is now on RF 35 and using major "4". That will never be an issue for WOAC, KAIL and WRNN - or for KLDT.)

KCEN's situation is a little stranger, since it's still entirely possible that someone could file to put RF channel 6 in Temple as a new station, and the letter of the law says that new RF 6 should be major channel "9." But as Doug correctly notes, as long as KCEN's move doesn't conflict with anything else in that market or neighboring markets, the FCC is probably inclined to let it slide.

At some point down the road, there will be some sort of conflict about this somewhere, and the FCC will issue some clarification. Until then, we can only guess.

 

[w9wi]

While I'm still not sure that either KCEN or KLDT is violating FCC rules, I'll stipulate that possibility for the sake of argument.

That said.. is it possible that somewhere in the huge mess of filings that both stations have been given a waiver of some sort to let them do what they're doing?

It's certainly possible. Waivers/Special Temporary Authorities are often done by letter and don't go through the database process.

Also, regarding KLDT - I can assure you they are broadcasting on digital channel 39, regardless of how the FCC database might be interpreted.

I don't doubt it at all. The way I interpret the database, KLDT has permission to operate on channel 39. They simply haven't yet filed for the permanent license, haven't notified the FCC their construction is done and the channel 39 facility proven to operate according to the terms of the permit. They have some time to make that filing.

Since all full-power stations left channels 52-69 on June 13th, if KLDT is on at all they're got to be on 39.

The point I was trying to make is that, in most circumstances, a licensed station that has a CP to make technical changes can elect to not implement that CP. If they do so, they can continue to operate with their previous, licensed facility. It's for that reason that LIC records remain in TV Query after a CP is issued (and even after Program Tests begin).

 

[JHBrandt]

I'm sure w9wi is correct. But he seems to have missed my point :'(, which was:

From the query it's impossible to tell what channel KLDT is broadcasting on or what power level they're using.

W9wi answers the channel question by bringing in additional info: KLDT is a full-power station, and as such is not permitted to operate on channel 54. Therefore if they're on the air, they must be on 39. (The rest of us answer the same question by scanning with our converter boxes.)

Note that this reasoning doesn't work for, e.g., KXII. If all you have to go by is the query, you can't tell whether they're on channel 20 or 12. Again, you need additional info; e.g., the FCC's list of post-transition channel assignments.

Nor does it help with the power level. Is KLDT actually operating at 1000 kW as their CP suggests? If I read dhett's post correctly, the answer is no. And they've applied twice for STAs for lower power levels. The query shows both STA applications but doesn't show either STA granted.

Same problem with KTVT. They're operating under their post-transition license on channel 11, but on channel 19 are they operating under the listed (pre-transition) 695 kW license, or under the 750 kW STA they applied for? Presumably the latter, but you can't tell that from the query.

Why does the query still list so many pre-transition licences, which presumably are no longer valid? And why do granted STAs often show a status of "Application" vs. "STA?" That's why I called the query "woefully out-of-date," and why I don't think anyone can fault the OP for being confused.

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

Why does the [FCC TV] query still list so many pre-transition licences, which presumably are no longer valid? And why do granted STAs often show a status of "Application" vs. "STA?" That's why I called the query "woefully out-of-date," and why I don't think anyone can fault the OP for being confused.

Another example from our market is KFWD. The TV Query shows BDSTA-20081216AIC, the STA for 800 watts, which never went on the air. The facility now in use by KFWD is BPCDT-20080312ACF, with 13 kW ERP. An application to cover
(BLCDT-20090724AAB) was accepted for filing on 27 JUL 2009. But that facility is not listed in the top-level TV Query result set for KFWD.

When I asked Hossein Hashemzadeh of the FCC about this, he responded:

``Records are correct, they have filed a license to cover channel 9 which is still pending before us (BLCDT-20090724AAB), also they have a modification BMPCDT 20080620AKS which is in TVQ database for channel 9. As soon as the license for channel 9 is granted then the previous license will be archived.''

That squares most everything...but it still doesn't account for the missing listing for the 13 kW facility, the one that's actually on the air.

 

[JHBrandt]

So the FCC query always lists the old, no-longer-valid license until the new license is officially approved. What-ever.

I've been following KFWD. Relying on the query, I'd assumed either they were using WFAA's old 18.6 kW facility or had already upgraded to their 55 kW facility, both of which are listed. I had no knowledge of the 13 kW facility.

It's not just us who are confused. The FCC query results may be "correct" in a technical sense, but are so misleading even TVFool.com regularly gets confused. And they use a fuller extract of the database than is available through the query!

Example: LP stations KNAV and KSEX both still show CP's that should have expired. TVFool eventually fixed KNAV, but has shown KSEX on analog channel 20 coming from Plano for years, even though nothing was ever broadcast from there AFAIK.

TVFool seems to try to compensate by, e.g., assuming all STA applications and all approved CPs are broadcasting. That mostly works, but not always. TVFool currently shows both KTXA and KPFW broadcasting on channel 18, and shows KLEG broadcasting on channel 44 in both analog and digital!

 

[fybush]

It's not just us who are confused. The FCC query results may be "correct" in a technical sense, but are so misleading even TVFool.com regularly gets confused. And they use a fuller extract of the database than is available through the query!

It might be useful here to point out that the FCC's database exists for a different purpose than what TVFool.com, or RabbitEars, or Doug's W9WI.com, or my own 100000Watts.com all try to use it for.

We're all concerned, as JHBrandt and Bob Nelson are, with what *is* on the air. But the FCC database is there for a slightly (but significantly) different reason: it's there to tell broadcasters and consulting engineers and the FCC itself what is *authorized* to be on the air.

For most radio purposes, and until the last few years for TV, that was generally the same thing. Stations didn't alter their facilities very often, and when they did it was usually a fairly straightforward change that progressed neatly from application to CP to program test authority to licensed status.

DTV, obviously, is a far more complicated set of transitions, and as we're seeing with stations like KFWD and KLDT and all the LPs, it's entirely possible for a station to hold valid authority to be using any one of several different facilities at the same time. It's even possible for a station to switch back and forth between different facilities while it's working on antenna moves or tower reconstruction, or waiting for another station to change channels.

This is not an ideal situation if all you want to know is "what's on the air right this very minute," but in no way does it make the database "woefully out of date," either. Take the KTVT/KTXA situation, for instance: until such time as CBS is confident that it has all the work done to license the permanent KTVT facility on 19 and the permanent KTXA facility on 18, CBS still has the option to move them back to 11 and 19, respectively, in the event that there's an unexpected development (an interference issue, let's say) that makes it undesirable to move to 19 and 18. So the FCC database *must* list all those authorizations, since CBS could legally be using any of them at any time - and since other broadcasters have to protect them all until one of them becomes the final licensed facility.

(This, I think, is also why STAs sometimes don't show up in query results: almost without exception, an STA represents a lesser facility than what's specified in a station's license or CP. So as long as KFWD, for instance, holds authorization to operate at 55 kW, it has to be protected as though it's a 55 kW signal, and the fact that it's temporarily running at 13 kW is of concern only to KFWD itself, so long as that lower-powered operation doesn't continue indefinitely.)

One more example of how the FCC's database needs don't match up with what "civilians" might expect from the database: Canadian and Mexican listings. Those are included in the FCC database for one reason only - to tell U.S. broadcasters what signals need to be protected from interference internationally. Because of the way international treaties and agreements work, what's protected may or may not match up with what's on the air. Canada, for instance, retains international protection for its AM stations even after they go dark, which means the FCC database continues to list literally hundreds of Canadian AM facilities that have been dark for years. This isn't "woefully out of date," because any AM application in the US is still required to provide protection to those defunct Canadian AMs, not to mention hundreds of non-existent Mexican facilities that are reported to the US for protection. (Hence all the "XENVA" listings in the database, which are really "XE" for Mexico and "NVA" for "nueva" and which don't represent real AM stations!)

Certain sites - radio-locator.com is probably the most prominent - treat the FCC's Canadian database information as though it reflects what's really on the air north of the border, and thus return extremely suspect results. Even the Canadian FM information in the FCC database is only accurate for protection purposes. The FCC doesn't care, and doesn't have any reason to care, what callsign any given Canadian FM station is using, so it doesn't routinely update Canadian (or Mexican) callsigns in its database. That information is out there, but you have to go to the Industry Canada or SCT databases to get it, because it's of no concern to the FCC.

 

[Bob E. Nelson]

I've been following KFWD. Relying on the query, I'd assumed either they were using WFAA's old 18.6 kW facility or had already upgraded to their 55 kW facility, both of which are listed. I had no knowledge of the 13 kW facility.

Getting information about actual on-the-air facilities requires a path through several passages. Here's how I discerned what facility KFWD is actually using at this time -- and Scott Fybush (who posted right around the time I prepared this response) may correct (or even shorten) the approach I took:

1). From the ``TV Query Results'' page for KFWD, click ``Applications''.
2). Then examine ``Application Search Results'' to find the most recent form 302-DTV listing.
3). Open up THAT application in another tab.
4). Then look at the license application to find out the ``Cover construction permit'' ID. In this case, it's
BPCDT-20080312ACF.
5). Next, go back to ``Application Search Results'' to find the form 301 matching that ID.
6). Finally, open that application (BPCDT-20080312ACF) in another tab to review the ``Tech Box'' which shows us these details:

Height of Radiation Center Above Average Terrain : 546 meters
Maximum Effective Radiated Power (average power): 13 kW
Antenna: DIE Model THV-6A9-R C180

As Scott pointed out, our concerns as ``laypeople'' differ from those in the engineering and legal professions. In the specific case of KFWD, I presume the ``as if'' rule applies, hence the listing for the larger 55 kW facility. Right?

And...Scott...here's hoping you come to D/FW soon. There's some more metal in the air since 2002 for the ``Site of the Week''.

 

[JHBrandt]

I read Scott's and Bob's latest replies. I tried Bob's procedure out on KXII and it works! I suppose it could be automated if TVFool (say) were really motivated!

Scott's explanation mostly makes sense, although I still don't understand a couple things:
1. Why do KSEX and KNAV still list CPs from over three years ago? Don't CPs expire after three years? I would've though they'd be purged by an automated process.
2. As we discussed, the FCC keeps the pre-transition licenses on file until a new license is granted, even if the pre-transition license was on an out-of-core channel (as with KLDT 54). I know that LP stations can keep using out-of-core channels until displaced by the new, non-TV licensee (e.g., KPFW 61). But I thought full-power stations couldn't move back. If so, why keep unusable licenses on file, if the query is to tell what the station is authorized to do?

I'll buy the explanation on STAs, although it made it sound like the FCC doesn't much care about getting them entered into the database. To their credit, they usually do get the applications in - just not the approvals.

 

[fybush]

Scott's explanation mostly makes sense, although I still don't understand a couple things:
1. Why do KSEX and KNAV still list CPs from over three years ago? Don't CPs expire after three years? I would've though they'd be purged by an automated process.

On KSEX, I see only one granted CP, BDISTTL-20051021AGR, which wasn't granted until 11/28/2007 and thus doesn't expire until 11/28/2010.

Same for KNAV - the only granted CP I see is BDCCDVL-20061010AKY, which doesn't expire until 3/16/2010.

Remember that the date on the file number is the date the application is filed, not the date it's granted.

2. As we discussed, the FCC keeps the pre-transition licenses on file until a new license is granted, even if the pre-transition license was on an out-of-core channel (as with KLDT 54). I know that LP stations can keep using out-of-core channels until displaced by the new, non-TV licensee (e.g., KPFW 61). But I thought full-power stations couldn't move back. If so, why keep unusable licenses on file, if the query is to tell what the station is authorized to do?

It's a quirk of the transition - there has to be *something* on file as a licensed facility, even if it's not actually usable. I suppose you could argue that KLDT still holds authority from the FCC to operate on 54 - but that the Congressional legislation that took 52-69 out of broadcast TV use overrides that FCC authority. The important thing is that there exists some sort of authority (CP, in this case) allowing KLDT to operate somewhere. Within a few years, all of those 52-69 licenses will have been replaced by proper in-core license, so this is a problem that won't exist by 2012.

As for Bob's procedure, yeah, that's about the way to go...or at least the way I do it. And yes, I'd love to come back to DFW one of these days!

 

[TexasTom]

1. Why do KSEX and KNAV still list CPs from over three years ago? Don't CPs expire after three years? I would've though they'd be purged by an automated process.

I don't think that the FCC is very good when it comes to scrubbing the database. I submitted several petitions for rulemakings to get new digital channels assigned to three different communities in 2004. While two of the three were successful (no, I didn't end up with the construction permit to build either), the third one was rejected by the FCC in the summer of 2004.

And yet that particular petition still shows up in the TV Query -- despite the fact that it has been dead for over five years.

Similarly, an application by MS Communications to move an LPTV from El Dorado, AR, to Garland, TX, was dismissed by the FCC in December of 2005, but is still in the database as the fourth anniversary of that dismissal approaches.