As broadcasters
attempt to maneuver
through
the FCC’s spectrum reallocation
plan, one of
the key concerns in our
industry is not so much
what the commission
does but
how they go
about it as well as the
timing. In last month’s controversy over
changes in determining TV station coverage
and interference, we believe the commission
has jumped the gun.
In this debate, it’s important to note
that technically, the commission is doing
the right thing. At the heart of the issue
is the so-called “OET-69” software, which
outlines the calculations used in determining
RF coverage area and interference
potential of full-power and Class A
low-power TV stations. In planning for repacking
broadcast station spectrum after
the auctions, the commission is updating
the method for measuring coverage and
released its new methodology last month
and asked for public comment.
The revised software updates several
parameters of OET-69, including population,
terrain, inaccuracies in the FCC database,
antenna beam tilt, calculation of depression
angles, precision of geographic
coordinates, establishment of cell grids
and treatment of internal Longley-Rice
warnings. The FCC noted that this new
TVStudy software “operates on modern
computer systems, and it runs much faster,
provides greater accuracy in modeling
and analysis, and is easier to use and more
versatile than the existing software.”
Although the FCC’s announcement
was met with minimal fanfare, TV Technology
Executive Editor Deborah McAdams broke the story online. The news
of the release sparked a response from
NAB, who told the FCC they had several
objections over the update, which could
prompt “legal uncertainty and confusion”
in planning for station coverage. Specifically,
the association challenged the commission
over its authority, methodology
and timing. Although it acknowledged
that an update was necessary, association
executives “expressed serious reservations”
over the changes in a meeting with
the commission after the notice was released.
“By making substantive alterations to
OET-69 at this stage of the process, NAB
explained that the commission was inviting
unnecessary delay into the process,
and would cause widespread uncertainty
for broadcasters who may be deciding
whether to participate in the auction and
how to go about protecting their viewers
in the event they do not,” the association
said in a statement after the meeting.
We agree. Optimizing broadcast coverage
and minimizing interference is of
paramount importance to our industry as
we enter into this process. Although the
FCC is doing the right thing (and is legally
bound by Congress to do so) by updating
the software to determine coverage,
it needs to be more cognizant over how
such changes will affect how, if and when
stations make their decision on whether
or not to participate in the auctions.