LPTV - IS IT VIABLE?

[fredcantu]

Hyperlocal LPTV might work if it was also carried on cable/satellite. Without that carriage, it seems like an iffy proposition.

So are you talking about limiting the cable or satellite carriage to subscribers in the zip codes covered by the TV signal? Otherwise you're extending the coverage of the LPTV and it stops being "hyperlocal."

 

[LibertyNT]

Chan 25 hardly covers most of DFW.

Of the LPs I can only get K31GL in McKinney.

 

[JeffDavis]

I'm in Cincinnati and know the WKRP situation fairly well. The owner tried and tried, but had limited carriage on cable. When UPN and the WB merged into The CW, he lost the affiliation to WKRC-HD2, and therefore lost his DirecTV carriage.

I wonder if these OTA stations are kind of an anachronism. Nobody changes channels like they used to in the old days, do they? I remember when our last new full power UHF came on in 1980, we found it by accident just flipping through. It turned out to be the Cincinnati Pay-TV channel then, but is now the MY Network channel.

With so much cable and satellite penetration, it seems these stations could be on the air and nobody would ever notice.

However, with that said, I watch ME-TV on WLWT-HD2 alll the time.

 

[edarmsttrong]

As I recall, I initially cheered the FCC's decision to raise the allowed VHF LP power from 300 watts to 3000 watts. But perhaps they need to be moving the other direction instead. Perhaps they (or Congress) should require LPTV stations to either upgrade to Class A, or limit the population their signals cover to allow for more locally-targeted programming. That way stations like K25FW or K31GL could go the class A route, while other LP stations narrowed their coverage to reach only their intended audience (downtown, a suburb like Garland, or wherever).

Is it still possible for a LPTV station to upgrade to Class A status, under the current FCC rules?

 

[JHBrandt]

Chan 25 hardly covers most of DFW.

Of the LPs I can only get K31GL in McKinney.

I should clarify - I was referring to the FCC protected area: the area the FCC thinks the signal could potentially reach (if you have a big/high enough antenna). For most LPs this covers the cities of Dallas & Ft. Worth plus much of the "inner ring" suburban area.

But even according to the FCC, McKinney is at the fringe for most LPs transmitting from Cedar Hill. K25FW only gets out to Plano & Frisco. (BTW, the FCC Web site incorrectly shows omnidirectional coverage even though K25FW has a directional antenna. Rabbitears.info is a better place to check.)

Is it still possible for a LPTV station to upgrade to Class A status, under the current FCC rules?

Don't know, but I was speculating about possible rules changes anyhow. It seemed logical for new restrictions on LPTV coverage to include an "escape hatch" for existing LPTV stations to upgrade to class A.

 

[JHBrandt]

The problem with a hyperlocal LPTV station is that the local programming could be costly to produce, and when you only get into 20% of the households to begin with (since you're not on cable or satellite), how do you make enough revenue to cover those programming costs with only 20% of a small portion of a larger market as your potential audience?

Hyperlocal LPTV might work if it was also carried on cable/satellite. Without that carriage, it seems like an iffy proposition.

That's a good point, although in the YouTube era, I don't think the cost of programming is the limiting factor as much as the cost of running an OTA digital LPTV station. Either way, if it's too expensive coverage limits would just make things worse.

The broader issue of cable/satellite coverage is worthy of another whole discussion. Many folks don't know that, even if they keep cable or satellite, they can get even more content if they hook a good antenna up to their HDTV; not only LPTV but also many of the subchannels the big guys have added to their lineup.

 

[dhett]

As I recall, I initially cheered the FCC's decision to raise the allowed VHF LP power from 300 watts to 3000 watts. But perhaps they need to be moving the other direction instead. Perhaps they (or Congress) should require LPTV stations to either upgrade to Class A, or limit the population their signals cover to allow for more locally-targeted programming. That way stations like K25FW or K31GL could go the class A route, while other LP stations narrowed their coverage to reach only their intended audience (downtown, a suburb like Garland, or wherever).

Is it still possible for a LPTV station to upgrade to Class A status, under the current FCC rules?

I believe the answer is yes, as I know of at least one station trying to do so.

 

[TexasTom]

Hyperlocal LPTV might work if it was also carried on cable/satellite. Without that carriage, it seems like an iffy proposition.

So are you talking about limiting the cable or satellite carriage to subscribers in the zip codes covered by the TV signal? Otherwise you're extending the coverage of the LPTV and it stops being "hyperlocal."

That's how it would have to work. Unfortunately, cable companies have gotten pretty good at screwing over the handful of LPTVs that are entitled to carriage by moving their "head ends" way far away. Even more unfortunately, the FCC seems rather disinclined to do anything that would grant increased carriage rights to any significant number of LPTV stations.

 

[fredcantu]

[the FCC seems rather disinclined to do anything that would grant increased carriage rights to any significant number of LPTV stations.

The system has been abused by stations that don't offer the audience anything but infomercials and other brokered time fare. Why should they get access to a larger audience via cable or satellite?

 

[LibertyNT]

The system has been abused by stations that don't offer the audience anything but infomercials and other brokered time fare. Why should they get access to a larger audience via cable or satellite?

That sure does seem like a way for the FCC to punish them.
*gasp* Maybe they do care, just a tinie wienie bit.

 

[JHBrandt]

The discussion I've read so far has been good. I think there are two types of LPTV programming that need different solutions. Programming that appeals to a reasonably wide audience, like Hot TV, RTV, etc. is much like full-power programming; I think the best solution for those stations is to go the class A route. Perhaps they could be rewarded for doing so with easier cable/satellite access.

I doubt we'd see very many shopping & all-infomercial channels opting to go class A, since they'd have to meet new requirements (such as E/I programming, I think). Anything that discourages these guys is a plus IMO.

The other type is hyperlocal programming that targets a geographically-concentrated audience. Some of the Godcasters fall into this category, as well as local ethnic programming. Cable/satellite coverage isn't practical for this type of programming, but few potential viewers can watch easily if the signal comes from Cedar Hill.

For the hyperlocal programming, how about this idea: we limit the covered population, but keep the current power limits. LPTVs could limit their coverage by other means, such as antenna height and/or beam tilt. They would be like street lamps: covering a limited area, but bright within that area. That way a simple UHF loop antenna could pick up the signal within the coverage area, with little interference outside. I'm trying to make it easy for cable/satellite viewers to add antennas for hyperlocal programming, while keeping their current cable or satellite service for general programming.

I'm still wondering about a couple of things. First, how much does it cost to run an LPTV station? Some churches are doing so, but are they all huge megachurches or are some more average-sized? (Trying to get a handle on how many viewers an LPTV needs to reach.)

Second, a technical question: how many cable/satellite viewers still tune their TV to channel 3, as opposed to using HDMI, component or composite A/V, S-video, or the like? (Trying to get a handle on how many cable/satellite viewers have an available RF port to hook a cheap antenna to.)

 

[eskipper411]

The discussion I've read so far has been good. I think there are two types of LPTV programming that need different solutions. Programming that appeals to a reasonably wide audience, like Hot TV, RTV, etc. is much like full-power programming; I think the best solution for those stations is to go the class A route. Perhaps they could be rewarded for doing so with easier cable/satellite access.

I doubt we'd see very many shopping & all-infomercial channels opting to go class A, since they'd have to meet new requirements (such as E/I programming, I think). Anything that discourages these guys is a plus IMO.

The other type is hyperlocal programming that targets a geographically-concentrated audience. Some of the Godcasters fall into this category, as well as local ethnic programming. Cable/satellite coverage isn't practical for this type of programming, but few potential viewers can watch easily if the signal comes from Cedar Hill.

For the hyperlocal programming, how about this idea: we limit the covered population, but keep the current power limits. LPTVs could limit their coverage by other means, such as antenna height and/or beam tilt. They would be like street lamps: covering a limited area, but bright within that area. That way a simple UHF loop antenna could pick up the signal within the coverage area, with little interference outside. I'm trying to make it easy for cable/satellite viewers to add antennas for hyperlocal programming, while keeping their current cable or satellite service for general programming.

I'm still wondering about a couple of things. First, how much does it cost to run an LPTV station? Some churches are doing so, but are they all huge megachurches or are some more average-sized? (Trying to get a handle on how many viewers an LPTV needs to reach.)

Second, a technical question: how many cable/satellite viewers still tune their TV to channel 3, as opposed to using HDMI, component or composite A/V, S-video, or the like? (Trying to get a handle on how many cable/satellite viewers have an available RF port to hook a cheap antenna to.)

I used to tune in to Channel 62 on my TV to get my satellite to work, but after a little incident with severe weather and the dish having to go out every time, I decided to hook up into the HDMI input and hook my 50 footer to it. Of course I would run a splitter into it but, the HD picture and sound, I will not pass up on.

 

[imagist]

Is it still possible for a LPTV station to upgrade to Class A status, under the current FCC rules?

It is not possible at this time and not in the foreseeable future with the current broadband plan.

 

[dhett]

Is it still possible for a LPTV station to upgrade to Class A status, under the current FCC rules?

It is not possible at this time and not in the foreseeable future with the current broadband plan.

It's still possible under certain conditions. In Las Vegas, KTUD-LD was just upgraded to Class A, but I believe it's because their analog station was class A and the digital companion was standard LPTV. Now that the analog signal has been shut off, the FCC allowed them to upgrade the digital station to Class A.

Do you have a citation to back up your contention that upgrading to Class A is otherwise not possible?

 

[tripinva]

It's not possible. The FCC window was opened once, back in 2000 or so, and has not been open since.

Class A can only apply to an analog OR a digital, but not to both at once. So in the case of KTUD, the analog was Class A until they asked the FCC to move the Class A protection to the digital. So in doing so, no new Class A was created, only the status transferred from an analog license to its companion digital license.

- Trip

 

[JHBrandt]

The FCC window was opened once, back in 2000 or so, and has not been open since.

- Trip

I think the FCC should open a class A window a bit more often than once in 12 years. Any insight into why they haven't?

 

[w9wi]

I don't think the FCC really wanted to create Class A in the first place. LPTVs have always been a secondary service, they really didn't want them to get in the way of full-power operations. But LPTV operators lobbied Congress for protection, and they got a bill passed *requiring* creation of the Class A service.

(I'm assuming the service is named after Class A FM stations)

WIth all the channel swapping & facility moves involved in the DTV transition, it remains pretty difficult to accommodate more Class A's without impeding existing full-power stations.

Now, refarming UHF spectrum for land mobile seems to be the Commission's top priority. As you may have noted, the FCC has, in the last two weeks, been issuing a pile of "show cause" orders, asking Class A stations which haven't kept up with required paperwork why they shouldn't be modified back to (bumpable) LPTV status.

More than one observer has the impression the Commission would like to get rid of Class A protection where possible. This would make it easier to shuffle those stations around, or delete them completely, if necessary to open more space.

 

[JHBrandt]

I don't think the FCC really wanted to create Class A in the first place. LPTVs have always been a secondary service, they really didn't want them to get in the way of full-power operations. But LPTV operators lobbied Congress for protection, and they got a bill passed *requiring* creation of the Class A service.

That makes some sense, but why does the FCC even care?

With all the channel swapping & facility moves involved in the DTV transition, it remains pretty difficult to accommodate more Class A's without impeding existing full-power stations.

I think that was true during the digital transition and for a short time afterward, but that's all pretty much over and done with now.

Now, refarming UHF spectrum for land mobile seems to be the Commission's top priority. As you may have noted, the FCC has, in the last two weeks, been issuing a pile of "show cause" orders, asking Class A stations which haven't kept up with required paperwork why they shouldn't be modified back to (bumpable) LPTV status.

I have no problem with the FCC enforcing the rules, but again, why do they even care? I have a hypothesis - keep reading.

More than one observer has the impression the Commission would like to get rid of Class A protection where possible. This would make it easier to shuffle those stations around, or delete them completely, if necessary to open more space.

It seems the core issue here is that the FCC simply wants fewer TV stations on the air, and Class A protection gets in the way of that goal, so they're just not allowing LPTVs to upgrade to Class A. So why do they want fewer TV stations? My hypothesis is that they're being pressured by competing non-TV interests who want more spectrum (probably the big broadband users: Verizon, Sprint, Clearwire, AT&T, etc.), and their lobbyists can offer retiring Commissioners nicer gigs than the cash-strapped LPTV lobby can.

The National Broadband Plan proposal to lop 20 more channels off the UHF TV band, and the de facto freeze on channel 51, are other obvious examples of this. But just because politics gets in the way doesn't mean Class A is a bad idea.

 

[imagist]

More than one observer has t

The National Broadband Plan proposal to lop 20 more channels off the UHF TV band, and the de facto freeze on channel 51, are other obvious examples of this. But just because politics gets in the way doesn't mean Class A is a bad idea.

Great observations and opinion!