Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Broadcast Services, Advanced Television } Systems Sixth Further Notice of Proposed } MM Docket No. 87-268; FCC 95-315 Rule Making. } REPLY COMMENTS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY TELEVISION, INC. et al. ON THE SIXTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING I. INTRODUCTION Comments submitted herein are in reply to comments submitted by othþrs in response to the above mentioned Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemakiÿg, MM Docket No. 87-268, FCC 96-317 (rel. Aug. 14, 1996) (the "Sixth FNPRM"). Washington County Television, Inc. (WCTV), owns and operates Low Poÿer Television Stations K66EK in Bartlesville, OK. and K60EX in Nowata, OK.. Joining Washington County Television, Inc. in filing these reply comments are the below listed, unaffiliated, Low Power (LPTV) stations; LPTV station KELFLP, Grove, OK. LPTV station W09BZ, East Bernstadt, KY. LPTV station K33DZ, Enid, OK. LPTV station K36DE, Kiowa, KS. LPTV station K13WI, Hawthorne, NV. These stations are not affiliated with WCTV or its two statioÿs save for a mutual concern regarding the future of Low Power Television specifically únd free over- the-air television broadcasting in general. These stations in concert wiÿh many other Low Power broadcasters, have vested interest in the above-referenced proceediÿg. In comments, timely submitted, on the Sixth FNPRM, WCTV wished the Commission to notice; 1) WCTV's appreciation of the Commission's "acknowledging ÿhe impact on low power (LPTV) broadcasters". 2) WCTV's submission that "No Low Power station should be ÿorced out of business to accommodate ATV [Advanced TeleVision]". 3) The additional obstacles to implementation of ATV posed by translators owned by Full Power stations prompting WCTV's sugÿestion that "no Full Power station receive additional spectrum without fiÿst relinquishing spectrum occupied by any translator(s) carrying its signal, sÿfficient to accommodate any displaced LPTV". 4) WCTV's qualified support of the Commission's plan to reÿocate all stations to a "core" spectrum, eventually. The upper channelÿ, 51 through 69, currently represents running room needed for displaced stútions. 5) "The Market Place is the appropriate regulator for Digiÿal Television" and the need to automatically issued second channels to all Fÿll Power stations has abated with the demise of HDTV. WCTV urged the Commission to "TERMINATE ISSUING AUTOMATIC SECOND CHANNELS to all Full Power broadcasters, instead treating DTV as an exÿerimental service until the market place has made its preference known". 6) The lack of any direction by the Commission regarding LPTV's access to ATV prompting WCTV to urge the Commission to "DROP SECONDARY STATUS FOR LPTV" thus allowing ALL stations to tranÿition to ATV on a Free Market path without being forced to surrendeÿ their channel "at the whim of a "First Class" [Full Power] citizen". After discussion with the above listed, unaffiliated, LPTV brÿadcasters and review of comments submitted by others, WCTV et al. wishes to revisit sevþral points and further enlighten the Commission. REPLY TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY CBA WCTV et al. wishes the Commission to note that while the Commÿnity Broadcasters Association (CBA) refers to itself as "the trade association of the nation's LPTV stations", in fact this is misleading. More properly it is a trade ÿrganization, not the trade association for LPTV stations. Further, with CBA's knowledge of only 350 to 400 stations, WCTV et al. suggests the Commission refrain from using those numbers as the only "opeÿating LPTV stations", "real, television venture[s], owned and operated by people witÿ hopes and aspirations that must be recognized and addressed". WCTV et al. concede ÿhe number of operating LPTV stations may be fewer than Commission records indicate ÿet none of the stations joined in these reply comments are owned by non-real people. Each station is real and operating and not included in CBA's estimate. WCTV et al. beÿieve CBA does a disservice by so severly underestimating the number of operating LPTV lÿcensee's. WCTV et al. encourages the Commission to recognize the existeÿce of all LPTV stations currently holding licenses until and unless a licensee' is ÿhown to be in default of the conditions of license. On other matters discussed by CBA, WCTV et al. is supportive. More specifically; 1) Postponing Spectrum Reallocation. The views of CBA and those submitted by WCTV are similar. 2) Migration of LPTV to Digital Service. Again, similar vÿews that are reconcilable. 3) WCTV et al. concur with CBA on the technical issues proÿosed in their comments on the Sixth FNPRM, ie: Determination of power, Precise Frequency Offset, Other Transmitter Characteristics, UHF Taboÿs and Advanced Techniques for Avoiding or Demonstrating No Interferþnce. REPLY TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY IBN WCTV et al. support INTERNATIONAL BROADCAST NETWORK's (IBN) claim that the ATSC standards "as they currently stand, are fundamentally flawed. They are contrary to the public interest, and must not be adopted" and that thþ National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) claim that "[t]he ATSC proposed standarý has been endorsed by the entire broadcast industry..." is untrue. Further, IBN raises questions as to the propriety of participúnts and openness of the proceedings that developed the standards, suggesting "The Commission must protect its independence and its integrity, and it must not allow thþre to be even an appearance of impropriety". And [if adopted] "The American system of uniÿersal, free, over-the-air television, which has long been the envy of the world, would exist no more". REPLY TO COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY CITADEL CITIDEL COMMUNICATIONS CO., LTD. (Citadel) and entities affilÿated with Citadel own several small market, VHF, television stations (not Low Power stations). Citidel points out the cost of construction for a second, UHF, transmissiÿn plant to meet the current ATSC proposed standard would exceed $4,000,000. Additionally, "the channel allocation proposed by the Sixth FNPRM would require a transmitteÿ power increase of thirty times the current amount for Citadel to replicate the ÿtation's Grade B signal..., Transmitters of the required size do not even currently exist on the commercial market". Power cost would jump from $35,727 per year to over $430,000 peÿ year. Citadel further states "When reasonable debt service is added, it is appaÿent that such dramatic increases in capital and operating expense could be genuinely deûilitating for small market stations. Such a result is untenable and counter to the public interest that the Commission is obligated to serve." Citadel urges the Commission, "full amount of spectrum currenÿly available for NTSC service continue to be available in the future and that all statÿons be returned to their current NTSC channel positions for final DTV operations" and reqÿire broadcasters "to replicate each station's Grade A contour... during interÿm DTV operations". WCTV et al. reiterates that Citadel is not a Low Power operatÿr and yet has problems with the ATSC standards as proposed, NAB claims not withstanding. WCTV et al. is now in agreement that the currently available spectrum should bþ retained, at least for the foreseeable future. REPLY TO COMMENTS BY LEONARD WALK Leonard Walk, Palm Beach Television Broadcasting, Inc. draws ÿhe Commission attention to the allocation of a new DTV channel, currently ocüupied by one of Palm Beach's LPTV stations, to a un-built Full Power station. WCTV et al. draws the Commissions attention to statements filþd in the comments by WCTV on the Sixth FNPRM calling for the abolition of secondarÿ status for LPTV. The Palm Beach LPTV station will be forced to go dark at the "whim of a First Class [Full Power] citizen". An un-built station taking the license of a functioning LPTV sure looks like a "whim" to WCTV et al.. REPLY TO VARIOUS COMMENTS Various commentors propose the Commission abandon the withdraÿal of spectrum. WCTV et al. concur! Properly orchestrated, conservation of spþctrum may be accomplished in the future. Early withdrawal of spectrum will only creatþ many, litigious, problems. The nation's budget will not be balanced by auction of recoverþd spectrum, besides, why should broadcasters be asked to balance the budget instead oÿ doctors, lawyers or possibly Indian Chiefs? Multiple commentors suggest the use of loaner channels with tÿe new DTV station eventually returning to its original channel. WCTV et al. contený no additional channel is required. The expense of rechanneling a Full Power twice to bþ unrealistic. Conversion from NTSC to DTV is not only possible but practical. When the midwest converted to color television in the 60's, iÿ was common to build the terminal facilities and upgrade transmission plants while maÿntaining monochrome service. When the day came, after much hoopla of course, we cúme on one day in color. The same will occur with DTV if it is to be. ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM STATIONS JOINING WCTV REPLY COMMENTS A major, national, television cable operator is believed to bþ accepting delivery of over 100,000 DTV set top convertors per month. These convertÿrs are installed in subscriber homes and convert the cable systems DTV signals tÿ NTSC. This is NOT HDTV but then we stopped talking about HDTV several FNPRM's ago. Once a cable goes digital, each subscriber will receive a set top convertor. It does not matter what format the local over-the-air stationÿ broadcast, the cable operator will send it down his wires as a digital signal and then cÿnvert it back to NTSC at the subscribers home. The cable industry estimates that literallÿ half the country is paying a cable system for television service. If half the country is on cable, and the subscriber can view every channel he pays for on a $300 NTSC TV set, just who are we doing all this for? Wÿy are cable subscribers (half the country remember) going to spend big bucks for digiÿal TV receivers to receive the same programming they already have? Is conversion of broadcast stations to digital necessary for ÿhat other half the country, those people without access to cable. We are not converting the country to digital for them because they already have DTV, they call it the "18 inch dish". Lets be honest here folks. Most television broadcasters are ÿar more interested in being carried on local cable systems than serving the old fÿgies that still use antenna's (the cable subscribers outnumber the antenna watchers). If cabÿe systems convert signal formats as needed, then supply subscribers with appropriatþ set-top converters, where is the incentive for broadcasters to spend mega-bucks cÿnverting to DTV? WCTV et al. believes those citizens receiving free over-the-aÿr signals are still entitled to their television service. How many will buy DTV compatÿble receivers remains to be seen and is a decision best left to the MARKET PLACE. As cable systems convert to digital and DTV compatible receivþrs become available, our FREE MARKET system will alert broadcasters if conversion tÿ DTV for the antenna watchers is practical. Forced conversion to DTV without knowledgþ of penetration of not DTV receivers but rather DTV-receivers-on-antenna's is NOT in the public interest! CONCLUSION WCTV et al. respectfully urges the Commission; 1) To reject the ATSC agreement now before the Commission, 2) Reject any proposal that results in forced relocation iÿ all but the most unique circumstances and facilitate open discussion betwþen ALL affected broadcasters before adoption of any proposal, 3) Endeavor to determine the correct number of operating LPTV licensee's, 4) Insure the Final Rule is voluntary for both broadcasterÿ and consumers and does not result in an adverse economic impact tÿ either, 5) Eliminate secondary status for existing LPTV licensee's, 6) To consider the impact of translators when a primary stútion converts to minimal bandwidth DTV and address whether, 6 MHz wide, traÿslator(s) effectively multiply the bandwidth available to the primary sÿation. Respectfully submitted, WASHINGTON COUNTY TELEVISION, INC., K66EK, Bartlesville / Dewey, OK. K60EX, Nowata, OK. W09BZ, East Bernstadt, KY. KELFLP, Grove, OK. MEDIA MANICS, INC., K32DZ, Enid, OK. BECKER BROADCAST SYSTEMS, K36DE, Kiowa KS. K13WI, Hawthorne, NV. By the President of Washington County Televÿsion, Inc. Murphy D. Boughner P.O. Box 186 Nowata, Oklahoma 74048 Telephone 918-333-2216 For; Washington County Television, Inc., K66EK, Bartlesville / Dewey, OK., K60EX, Nowata, OK., Andrea Kessler, W09BZ, East Bernstadt, KY., Tony Bickle, KELFLP, Grove, OK., C.D. Pearson, Owner / President, Media Manics, Inc., K32DZ, Enid, OK., Scott Becker, Becker Broadcast Systems, K36DE, Kiowa, KS., K13WI, Hawthorn, NV.. January 8, 1997